https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365910 An assessee who elects to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot also claim abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) for a period of factory closure. The Tribunal noted that, in the absence of any stay of the binding Supreme Court precedent, the earlier line of decisions followed by the jurisdictional High Court governed the issue. On that basis, the opted payment scheme excluded remission for stoppage of production for more than seven days, so the abatement claim was not admissible and the adjudicating authority's order was sustained. en-us Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:36:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365910 An assessee who elects to pay duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot also claim abatement under Rule 96ZP(2) for a period of factory closure. The Tribunal noted that, in the absence of any stay of the binding Supreme Court precedent, the earlier line of decisions followed by the jurisdictional High Court governed the issue. On that basis, the opted payment scheme excluded remission for stoppage of production for more than seven days, so the abatement claim was not admissible and the adjudicating authority's order was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365910