https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53337 The Tribunal held that the respondents were not entitled to abatement for the day production resumed as they did not engage in manufacturing activity during the disputed period. The impugned order was modified to exclude abatement for that specific day, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting manufacturing activity during the contentious period. en-us Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:50:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53337 The Tribunal held that the respondents were not entitled to abatement for the day production resumed as they did not engage in manufacturing activity during the disputed period. The impugned order was modified to exclude abatement for that specific day, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed due to the lack of evidence supporting manufacturing activity during the contentious period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53337