https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104605 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was sustained where duty had already been determined under the capacity-based scheme and was not paid within the prescribed time; the Tribunal held that provisionality arguments and financial hardship did not displace the statutory consequence. In the separate appeal, a final abatement order had to be given effect in computing liability, so the duty and consequential penalty were reduced and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh quantification and communication of the revised figures. The document states that the challenge failed on the penalty issue in one appeal and succeeded only to the extent of recomputation in the other. en-us Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:50:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104605 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was sustained where duty had already been determined under the capacity-based scheme and was not paid within the prescribed time; the Tribunal held that provisionality arguments and financial hardship did not displace the statutory consequence. In the separate appeal, a final abatement order had to be given effect in computing liability, so the duty and consequential penalty were reduced and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh quantification and communication of the revised figures. The document states that the challenge failed on the penalty issue in one appeal and succeeded only to the extent of recomputation in the other. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104605