https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378279 Demand and penalty required fresh consideration where the adjudicating authority treated a stenter as non-working but refused abatement for the closure period only because no formal abatement application had been filed. The record also showed that the demand and penalty were confirmed without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, with directions to apply the CBEC circular on abatement for closure period and to decide the matter after granting a hearing. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:08:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378279 Demand and penalty required fresh consideration where the adjudicating authority treated a stenter as non-working but refused abatement for the closure period only because no formal abatement application had been filed. The record also showed that the demand and penalty were confirmed without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, with directions to apply the CBEC circular on abatement for closure period and to decide the matter after granting a hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378279