Retrospective revision of production capacity defeats penalty where duty payments are treated as provisional, not delayed.

Retrospective revision of Annual Capacity of Production meant that duty paid during the intervening period had to be treated as provisional and not as delayed payment. Once the differential duty was adjusted and the payments were regarded as due compliance rather than belated discharge, the basic condition for penalty was absent. Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was therefore not leviable, and the order vacating the penalties was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was leviable when the Annual Capacity of Production was revised retrospectively and the duty paid in the interregnum was liable to be treated as provisional.

Analysis: The revised determination of Annual Capacity of Production was made effective retrospectively, and the duty payments made by the assessee during the intervening period were therefore not to be treated as delayed payments. Once the differential duty had been adjusted and the payments were to be regarded as due payments rather than belated compliance, the foundational requirement for imposition of penalty was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) and Rule 173Q was not leviable; the order vacating the penalties was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty payments are rendered provisional by a retrospective revision of the capacity determination, and there is no actual delay or default in payment, penalty for short-payment cannot be sustained.

---