https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76287 A later trade notice could not be applied retrospectively to deny abatement for an earlier furnace closure period, because administrative instructions cannot alter the legal position for a completed period; the abatement for the disputed closure days was upheld. Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) was mandatory, and the Court applied Supreme Court guidance to hold that the authority had no discretion to reduce it on grounds of absence of mens rea or bona fide conduct; the Tribunal's reduction of penalty was unsustainable. The Revenue succeeded only on the penalty issue, while the abatement issue was decided for the assessee. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76287 A later trade notice could not be applied retrospectively to deny abatement for an earlier furnace closure period, because administrative instructions cannot alter the legal position for a completed period; the abatement for the disputed closure days was upheld. Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) was mandatory, and the Court applied Supreme Court guidance to hold that the authority had no discretion to reduce it on grounds of absence of mens rea or bona fide conduct; the Tribunal's reduction of penalty was unsustainable. The Revenue succeeded only on the penalty issue, while the abatement issue was decided for the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76287