https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122721 Failure to pay monthly duty by the 10th day under the capacity-based assessment scheme attracted mandatory penalty under the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3). The provision was construed as leaving no discretion to impose a lesser amount once the duty remained outstanding, and the interpretation adopted in PEE AAR Steels (P) Ltd. was followed. The penalty therefore had to match the duty due, and a reduced penalty was not legally sustainable. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:22:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122721 Failure to pay monthly duty by the 10th day under the capacity-based assessment scheme attracted mandatory penalty under the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3). The provision was construed as leaving no discretion to impose a lesser amount once the duty remained outstanding, and the interpretation adopted in PEE AAR Steels (P) Ltd. was followed. The penalty therefore had to match the duty due, and a reduced penalty was not legally sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122721