https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280658 The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation of Rule 96ZO, finding that abatement is based on non-production of notified goods, not a total factory shutdown. They confirmed that clearance from existing stock during closure does not affect eligibility for abatement. The Tribunal ruled that delay in filing intimation should not bar abatement, especially if submitted on the day of closure. Consequently, the appellants were deemed eligible for abatement from the date of intimation, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration with instructions for a fair hearing. 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 The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation of Rule 96ZO, finding that abatement is based on non-production of notified goods, not a total factory shutdown. They confirmed that clearance from existing stock during closure does not affect eligibility for abatement. The Tribunal ruled that delay in filing intimation should not bar abatement, especially if submitted on the day of closure. Consequently, the appellants were deemed eligible for abatement from the date of intimation, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration with instructions for a fair hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280658