https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122272 Finalised capacity determination supported the duty demand for both disputed periods: the assessed annual production capacity had attained finality, the subsequent recomputation was not challenged, and no fresh change in installed capacity justified further pro rata reduction. Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was not treated as automatic in every case; applying the approach comparable to Section 11AC, the provision was read as allowing discretion based on the facts and circumstances. As there was no finding of mala fide intent and delayed payment still attracted interest, the penalty was reduced to nil while interest liability remained payable. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:15:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122272 Finalised capacity determination supported the duty demand for both disputed periods: the assessed annual production capacity had attained finality, the subsequent recomputation was not challenged, and no fresh change in installed capacity justified further pro rata reduction. Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was not treated as automatic in every case; applying the approach comparable to Section 11AC, the provision was read as allowing discretion based on the facts and circumstances. As there was no finding of mala fide intent and delayed payment still attracted interest, the penalty was reduced to nil while interest liability remained payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122272