https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78575 A pending abatement claim for an earlier closure period did not extinguish penalty exposure for a separate later period of short payment of duty. After the Finance Act, 2001, the validation and saving provisions were held not to remove the power to impose penalty for defaults committed when the penal provision was already in force, because they did not retrospectively create a new offence. Once default in payment of duty was established, the governing rule required penalty equal to the duty amount, and no discretion existed to substitute a nominal sum. The appeal therefore succeeded, the reduced penalty was set aside, and the statutory penalty was restored. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:45:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78575 A pending abatement claim for an earlier closure period did not extinguish penalty exposure for a separate later period of short payment of duty. After the Finance Act, 2001, the validation and saving provisions were held not to remove the power to impose penalty for defaults committed when the penal provision was already in force, because they did not retrospectively create a new offence. Once default in payment of duty was established, the governing rule required penalty equal to the duty amount, and no discretion existed to substitute a nominal sum. The appeal therefore succeeded, the reduced penalty was set aside, and the statutory penalty was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78575