https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210132 The amended proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) imposing a 100% penalty for non-payment of duty was held to operate prospectively from 1 May 1998, so it could not be applied where the show cause notice had been issued earlier for defaults in the preceding period. The assessee was therefore not liable to that enhanced penalty on the basis of the later amendment, but penalty exposure remained under Rule 173Q. On the facts, the delay in payment was not fully excusable, so the penalty linked to the larger unpaid amount was reduced, while duty, interest, and the separate penalty for the smaller delayed payment were maintained. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210132 The amended proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) imposing a 100% penalty for non-payment of duty was held to operate prospectively from 1 May 1998, so it could not be applied where the show cause notice had been issued earlier for defaults in the preceding period. The assessee was therefore not liable to that enhanced penalty on the basis of the later amendment, but penalty exposure remained under Rule 173Q. On the facts, the delay in payment was not fully excusable, so the penalty linked to the larger unpaid amount was reduced, while duty, interest, and the separate penalty for the smaller delayed payment were maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210132