https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49822 Rule 96ZO(2) required intimation of factory closure to the Assistant Commissioner, with a copy to the Range Superintendent, as a safeguard against clandestine manufacture and removal. Notice sent only to the Range Superintendent did not satisfy that prescribed mode of intimation and could not amount to substantial compliance. The omission to notify the Assistant Commissioner therefore defeated the claim for abatement of duty, and the order rejecting abatement was upheld. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:42:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49822 Rule 96ZO(2) required intimation of factory closure to the Assistant Commissioner, with a copy to the Range Superintendent, as a safeguard against clandestine manufacture and removal. Notice sent only to the Range Superintendent did not satisfy that prescribed mode of intimation and could not amount to substantial compliance. The omission to notify the Assistant Commissioner therefore defeated the claim for abatement of duty, and the order rejecting abatement was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49822