https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161818 Differential central excise duty and penalty under the compounded levy scheme were held unsustainable where the assessee had obtained permission to erect an additional chamber and had intimated commencement and completion of the work. The department did not disprove the factual position or establish actual use of the disputed chambers. Although the demand was based on advance payment for the full month and separate claim of abatement, the governing rule had been struck down as ultra vires, and any lapse was treated as procedural. On merits, the assessee was also not shown to be ineligible for abatement, so the demand and penalty failed. en-us Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:10:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161818 Differential central excise duty and penalty under the compounded levy scheme were held unsustainable where the assessee had obtained permission to erect an additional chamber and had intimated commencement and completion of the work. The department did not disprove the factual position or establish actual use of the disputed chambers. Although the demand was based on advance payment for the full month and separate claim of abatement, the governing rule had been struck down as ultra vires, and any lapse was treated as procedural. On merits, the assessee was also not shown to be ineligible for abatement, so the demand and penalty failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161818