https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53177 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme does not provide abatement of duty for closure of a unit for not less than seven days, unlike the earlier sub-rule that expressly allowed such relief. The settled position, reflected in the cited Supreme Court authority, is that no abatement is available to units governed by Rule 96ZO(3); the claim was therefore rejected. A further challenge based on absence of notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not accepted because recovery under the compounded levy scheme proceeds on its own statutory footing; the demand was upheld in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:35:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53177 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme does not provide abatement of duty for closure of a unit for not less than seven days, unlike the earlier sub-rule that expressly allowed such relief. The settled position, reflected in the cited Supreme Court authority, is that no abatement is available to units governed by Rule 96ZO(3); the claim was therefore rejected. A further challenge based on absence of notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not accepted because recovery under the compounded levy scheme proceeds on its own statutory footing; the demand was upheld in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53177