https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109610 Penalty for delayed payment of the first instalment of duty under Rule 96ZO was held unsustainable where the monthly duty liability had already been fully discharged and the delay was only a short postponement in remittance. The penalty matched the delayed instalment and interest was also levied, but the order gave no adequate basis for treating the lapse as warranting such a severe consequence. On those facts, the penalty was found unfair and was set aside. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109610 Penalty for delayed payment of the first instalment of duty under Rule 96ZO was held unsustainable where the monthly duty liability had already been fully discharged and the delay was only a short postponement in remittance. The penalty matched the delayed instalment and interest was also levied, but the order gave no adequate basis for treating the lapse as warranting such a severe consequence. On those facts, the penalty was found unfair and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109610