https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118039 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) was held unsustainable where the assessee, operating under the compounded levy scheme, had paid duty as initially determined and the later short payment arose only because the department decided the abatement claim belatedly. Once the Commissioner's order revised the liability, the assessee paid the differential duty with interest. On these facts, the delay was attributable to the delayed departmental determination rather than any default by the assessee, so the statutory basis for imposing penalty was not attracted. en-us Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:30:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118039 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) was held unsustainable where the assessee, operating under the compounded levy scheme, had paid duty as initially determined and the later short payment arose only because the department decided the abatement claim belatedly. Once the Commissioner's order revised the liability, the assessee paid the differential duty with interest. On these facts, the delay was attributable to the delayed departmental determination rather than any default by the assessee, so the statutory basis for imposing penalty was not attracted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118039