https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280658 Under Rule 96ZO, abatement depends on non-production of the notified goods for the prescribed continuous period, and it is not defeated merely because the manufacturer clears stock produced earlier. Delay in filing intimation of closure does not by itself bar abatement for the eligible period; eligibility must be examined from the date of intimation where appropriate. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration of the abatement claim for the closure period after intimation. en-us Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 May 2019 17:26:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280658 Under Rule 96ZO, abatement depends on non-production of the notified goods for the prescribed continuous period, and it is not defeated merely because the manufacturer clears stock produced earlier. Delay in filing intimation of closure does not by itself bar abatement for the eligible period; eligibility must be examined from the date of intimation where appropriate. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration of the abatement claim for the closure period after intimation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280658