2006 (10) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cise service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') dated 1-12-2004 [2005 (192) E.L.T. 647 (Tribunal)] in E/Appeal No. 676/2000-NB(B), proposing following questions of law :- "1. Whether the intimation of date of closure of the furnace sent after two days due to intervening holidays can be considered as proper when the Trade Notice issued in this regard clearly provides .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d for abatement claim from 9-10-1999 to 18-10-1999, which was disallowed on the ground that the closure intimation was filed on 11-10-1999 instead of 9-10-1999, as required under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules'). Explanation of the assessee was that the unit was closed on 9-10-1999 at 22.00 hours and 9th and 10th October were Saturday and Sunday and, therefor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the amount of penalty, the order has been passed on facts and we have already held in Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s. K.C. Alloys Steel Castings, Ludhiana. CEA No. 77 of 2005, decided on 3-8-2006 = 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1183 (P H) that penalty under Section 96ZO of the Act was not the minimum but in the discretion of the appropriate authority on individual facts. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X