https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48090 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to grant abatement for the closure of one furnace in a factory under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized that each furnace operated independently, constituting separate units within the factory. Additionally, the High Court upheld the discretionary nature of the penalty imposed for non-payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3), setting aside the penalty due to the delay caused by the pending abatement claim. The appeal was dismissed, clarifying the abatement criteria and confirming the discretionary nature of the penalty in such cases. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:54:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48090 The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to grant abatement for the closure of one furnace in a factory under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized that each furnace operated independently, constituting separate units within the factory. Additionally, the High Court upheld the discretionary nature of the penalty imposed for non-payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3), setting aside the penalty due to the delay caused by the pending abatement claim. The appeal was dismissed, clarifying the abatement criteria and confirming the discretionary nature of the penalty in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48090