https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112290 Under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where an assessee's abatement claim for alleged furnace closure has already been finally rejected, the duty liability for the relevant period continues to subsist and non-payment cannot be justified; the demand is upheld. Although duty was confirmed, penalty may still be moderated where the facts do not show fraudulent intent to evade duty and the original penalty is disproportionate. On that basis, the penalty equal to duty was reduced to Rs. 50,000, giving the assessee only partial relief. en-us Fri, 14 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:06:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112290 Under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where an assessee's abatement claim for alleged furnace closure has already been finally rejected, the duty liability for the relevant period continues to subsist and non-payment cannot be justified; the demand is upheld. Although duty was confirmed, penalty may still be moderated where the facts do not show fraudulent intent to evade duty and the original penalty is disproportionate. On that basis, the penalty equal to duty was reduced to Rs. 50,000, giving the assessee only partial relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112290