https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113699 Penalty under the proviso to Rule 96ZP(1)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not attracted because the manufacturer had paid the outstanding duty with interest before 30 April 1998. The operative precondition for penalty was failure to pay by that date, and that condition was not met on the facts recorded. The earlier issue of a demand notice did not cure the defect in invoking the penalty provision. Substitution of the rule by Notification No. 7/98-C.E. (N.T.) did not change the result on those facts, so the penalty was set aside. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2012 17:42:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113699 Penalty under the proviso to Rule 96ZP(1)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not attracted because the manufacturer had paid the outstanding duty with interest before 30 April 1998. The operative precondition for penalty was failure to pay by that date, and that condition was not met on the facts recorded. The earlier issue of a demand notice did not cure the defect in invoking the penalty provision. Substitution of the rule by Notification No. 7/98-C.E. (N.T.) did not change the result on those facts, so the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113699