https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116230 Retrospective revision of Annual Capacity of Production meant that duty paid during the intervening period had to be treated as provisional and not as delayed payment. Once the differential duty was adjusted and the payments were regarded as due compliance rather than belated discharge, the basic condition for penalty was absent. Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was therefore not leviable, and the order vacating the penalties was sustained. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:01:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116230 Retrospective revision of Annual Capacity of Production meant that duty paid during the intervening period had to be treated as provisional and not as delayed payment. Once the differential duty was adjusted and the payments were regarded as due compliance rather than belated discharge, the basic condition for penalty was absent. Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was therefore not leviable, and the order vacating the penalties was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116230