- (1.) We have heard Sri R.C. Shukla, for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent. The appellant-Central Excise Department has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Meerut dated 28-1-2004, and the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 23-2-2005 2005 192 ELT 645 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/-.
(2.) 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.
(3.) The appeal has been preferred on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether abatement of duty for the closure period can be allowed to the assessee who did not follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? (ii) Whether lesser penalty other than mandatory penalty equal to the amount of duty provided under Rule 96ZP(3) of the aforesaid Rules can be imposed by the Tribunal?;