Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the Customs, Excise & service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) dated 1-12-2004 [2005 (192) E.L.T. 647 (Tribunal)] in E/Appeal No. 676/2000-NB(B), proposing following questions of law :- 1. Whether the intimation of date of closure of the furnace sent after two days due to intervening holidays can be considered as proper when the Trade Notice issued in this regard clearly provides to send the intimations in such eases through post/telegram? 2 Whether penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(3) upon a manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) and who opted to pay duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 but failed to pay the whole of the amount payable for any month by the 15th day or the last day of such month, as the case may be, is mandatory or discretionary in nature? 2. The assessee is manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots/billets which are chargeable to duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) on the basis of Annual Capacity of Production. The assessee applied for abatement claim from 9-10-1999 to 18-10-1999, which was disallowed on the ground that the closure intimation was filed on 11-10-1999 instead of 9-10-1999, as required under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules). Explanation of the assessee was that the unit was closed on 9-10-1999 at 22.00 hours and 9th and 10th October were Saturday and Sunday and, therefore, closure intimation was filed on 11-10-1999. This explanation has been accepted by the Tribunal. The assessee also claimed abatement for the period from 30-11-1999 to 10-12-1999 but closure intimation was given on 3-12-1999 for which only explanation was that on the relevant day there was marriage anniversary of the Director. This was not accepted as a valid explanation and, therefore, the claim was disallowed. However, penalty payable on account of the said default was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. This was not accepted as a valid explanation and, therefore, the claim was disallowed. However, penalty payable on account of the said default was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. As regards the first question, the explanation of the assessee having been duly accepted on facts, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises on the issue of eligibility for abatement claim. 5. As regards reduction of the amount of penalty, the order has been passed on facts and we have already held in Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s. K.C. Alloys & Steel Castings, Ludhiana . CEA No. 77 of 2005, decided on 3-8-2006 = 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1183 (P & H) that penalty under Section 96ZO of the Act was not the minimum but in the discretion of the appropriate authority on individual facts. In the present case, discretion having been exercised, we are unable to hold that the same was perverse. 6. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed.