https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153891 A belated objection that the production-capacity determination and resulting demand were made ex parte failed where the record showed no specific appeal ground, no protest after the communication, and no challenge to the representation order. Equal penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed for any period before 1 May 1998, because a penal provision cannot operate retrospectively without clear legislative intent. The demand and related findings were left undisturbed, but the penalty was confined to the post-commencement period and set aside for the earlier period. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2013 14:36:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153891 A belated objection that the production-capacity determination and resulting demand were made ex parte failed where the record showed no specific appeal ground, no protest after the communication, and no challenge to the representation order. Equal penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be imposed for any period before 1 May 1998, because a penal provision cannot operate retrospectively without clear legislative intent. The demand and related findings were left undisturbed, but the penalty was confined to the post-commencement period and set aside for the earlier period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153891