https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51274 Duty determined under annual capacity rules remained open to re-determination on proof of lower actual production, even where payment had been opted under Rule 96ZO(1), and the assessee's production records had to be examined before refusing relief. The claim for abatement for alleged factory closure also required verification of the mandatory closure and restart intimations, together with the supporting departmental records, before rejection. Both issues were remitted for fresh consideration on the basis of the relevant production and closure evidence. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51274 Duty determined under annual capacity rules remained open to re-determination on proof of lower actual production, even where payment had been opted under Rule 96ZO(1), and the assessee's production records had to be examined before refusing relief. The claim for abatement for alleged factory closure also required verification of the mandatory closure and restart intimations, together with the supporting departmental records, before rejection. Both issues were remitted for fresh consideration on the basis of the relevant production and closure evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51274