https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117211 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) for default in duty payment had to be tested on the correct statutory and factual context. The appellate order was unsustainable because it relied on Notification No. 42/98(NT), which concerned the compounded levy scheme for textile processing units and was not applicable to hot re-rolling mills, and on Beauty Dyers, which was factually distinguishable. The order-in-appeal was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing both sides, with no final adjudication on the penalty issue at that stage. en-us Tue, 03 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:41:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117211 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) for default in duty payment had to be tested on the correct statutory and factual context. The appellate order was unsustainable because it relied on Notification No. 42/98(NT), which concerned the compounded levy scheme for textile processing units and was not applicable to hot re-rolling mills, and on Beauty Dyers, which was factually distinguishable. The order-in-appeal was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing both sides, with no final adjudication on the penalty issue at that stage. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117211