https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51014 Financial hardship alone did not justify delayed or short payment of excise duty under the monthly payment scheme, so the penalties for those periods were sustained. Where no defence was offered for periods of non-payment, the penalties were also confirmed. However, for the period when the furnace was admittedly closed and abatement had been granted, the factual basis supported non-payment and the penalty could not be sustained, so that penalty was set aside. The result was partial relief: the assessee remained liable for penalties linked to delay, short payment, and unexplained non-payment, but obtained relief for the closed furnace period. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:51:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51014 Financial hardship alone did not justify delayed or short payment of excise duty under the monthly payment scheme, so the penalties for those periods were sustained. Where no defence was offered for periods of non-payment, the penalties were also confirmed. However, for the period when the furnace was admittedly closed and abatement had been granted, the factual basis supported non-payment and the penalty could not be sustained, so that penalty was set aside. The result was partial relief: the assessee remained liable for penalties linked to delay, short payment, and unexplained non-payment, but obtained relief for the closed furnace period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51014