<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (7) TMI 373 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107659</link>
    <description>Rule 96ZQ penalty was treated as unsustainable where the duty-payment obligation was linked to prior determination of annual capacity of production and that determination had not been finally made. The Tribunal read the rule within the larger scheme governing capacity-based assessment and payment, and held that the penalty could not stand on the facts found. The dispute was confined to penalty, as the duty demand itself was not contested, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee. The decision underscores that default-based penalty cannot be sustained unless the relevant payment liability on the due date is clearly established under the governing rule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 373 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107659</link>
      <description>Rule 96ZQ penalty was treated as unsustainable where the duty-payment obligation was linked to prior determination of annual capacity of production and that determination had not been finally made. The Tribunal read the rule within the larger scheme governing capacity-based assessment and payment, and held that the penalty could not stand on the facts found. The dispute was confined to penalty, as the duty demand itself was not contested, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee. The decision underscores that default-based penalty cannot be sustained unless the relevant payment liability on the due date is clearly established under the governing rule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>