2013 (9) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....late Tribunal, New Delhi dated 23-2-2005 [2005 (192) E.L.T. 645 (Tri.-Del.)] by which the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Rule 96-ZP of the Central Excise Rules 1944, was reduced by the Appellate Authority from Rs. 2,14,502/- to the amount of duty payable i.e. at Rs. 35,377/-, and thereafter by the Tribunal to Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The Tribunal held that non-payment of differential duty was not deliberate. The assessee had closed the mill permanently on 31-10-1997, of which due intimation was given by them to the Revenue. In the circumstances duty for only two months i.e. September and October 1997, could be demanded from them. 4. The appeal has been preferred on the following substantial questions of law :- "(i)&ems....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judicating Authority, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,14,502/-. 8. The Appellate Authority found that it was a determination of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the basis of annual capacity of production. The unit of the assessee remained in operation only for two months i.e. September and October 1997 and was closed from 31-10-1997, thus duty liability on the assessee would be for two months only. Taking into account the Annual Capacity of Production, the duty liability for two months was worked out to Rs. 71,650/- i.e. @ Rs. 35,825/- per month, and since the appellant had paid Rs. 36,273/-, the total liability was fixed at Rs. 35,377/-, and accordingly the penalty under Rule 96ZP was reduced to Rs. 35,377/-....