https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758370 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal challenging excise duty demand for March-April 2015 when appellant's factory remained closed. Revenue confirmed demand arguing closure was less than 3 months under compounded levy scheme. Tribunal held that closure was involuntary, mandated by Gujarat Pollution Control Board, making it beyond appellant's control. Relying on Sarthi Rubber Industries precedent, CESTAT ruled that forced closure cannot be treated as failure to comply with notification provisions. Non-production during involuntary closure constitutes ceasing to work rather than non-compliance. Duty liability during forced closure period was unsustainable, and impugned order was set aside. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758370 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal challenging excise duty demand for March-April 2015 when appellant's factory remained closed. Revenue confirmed demand arguing closure was less than 3 months under compounded levy scheme. Tribunal held that closure was involuntary, mandated by Gujarat Pollution Control Board, making it beyond appellant's control. Relying on Sarthi Rubber Industries precedent, CESTAT ruled that forced closure cannot be treated as failure to comply with notification provisions. Non-production during involuntary closure constitutes ceasing to work rather than non-compliance. Duty liability during forced closure period was unsustainable, and impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758370