https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217797 After amendment of Rule 96ZQ(7), an independent processor seeking abatement for a period of less than one month had to first pay duty for the full month before pursuing the claim; earlier pre-amendment decisions and a Board circular could not override the amended rule. The denial of abatement therefore supported the duty demand. On penalty, the dispute was one of legal interpretation only, with no finding of misstatement, suppression, or mala fide conduct, so penal action was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217797 After amendment of Rule 96ZQ(7), an independent processor seeking abatement for a period of less than one month had to first pay duty for the full month before pursuing the claim; earlier pre-amendment decisions and a Board circular could not override the amended rule. The denial of abatement therefore supported the duty demand. On penalty, the dispute was one of legal interpretation only, with no finding of misstatement, suppression, or mala fide conduct, so penal action was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217797