https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119291 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was not warranted because the duty demand stemmed from an annual production capacity determination that was already under challenge and had earlier been remanded, leaving the underlying issue sub judice. The assessee had substantially discharged the duty before adjudication and paid the balance shortly after the order, so no mala fide intention could be attributed to the non-payment. On those facts, the penal consequence was set aside, while the duty demand remained confirmed and interest continued to apply according to law. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:16:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119291 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was not warranted because the duty demand stemmed from an annual production capacity determination that was already under challenge and had earlier been remanded, leaving the underlying issue sub judice. The assessee had substantially discharged the duty before adjudication and paid the balance shortly after the order, so no mala fide intention could be attributed to the non-payment. On those facts, the penal consequence was set aside, while the duty demand remained confirmed and interest continued to apply according to law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119291