https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51427 Compliance with the statutory intimation requirement under Rule 96ZO(2) for compounded levy abatement was treated as a substantive condition, so incomplete disclosure of closure details, meter readings and stock position justified ? better English: justified denial of abatement for the first closure period. The later three closure periods required reconsideration because the materials, including nominal electricity consumption and stock variation, needed verification. The Tribunal also held that abatement could not be denied without examining whether closure of one furnace out of two, where capacity had been determined furnace-wise, was sufficient to qualify for relief. The matter was remanded for fresh determination on that point, while rejection for the first period was sustained. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51427 Compliance with the statutory intimation requirement under Rule 96ZO(2) for compounded levy abatement was treated as a substantive condition, so incomplete disclosure of closure details, meter readings and stock position justified ? better English: justified denial of abatement for the first closure period. The later three closure periods required reconsideration because the materials, including nominal electricity consumption and stock variation, needed verification. The Tribunal also held that abatement could not be denied without examining whether closure of one furnace out of two, where capacity had been determined furnace-wise, was sufficient to qualify for relief. The matter was remanded for fresh determination on that point, while rejection for the first period was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51427