https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246422 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5) for delayed duty payment could not be sustained at the full duty amount where the provision had already been held ultra vires by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The assessee's duty liability under Rule 96ZQ(1) was not disputed, but the only issue was the quantum of penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii). A Supreme Court ruling upholding penalty under the rule did not assist the Revenue because vires was not considered there. The enhanced penalty equal to duty was therefore not justified and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:20:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246422 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5) for delayed duty payment could not be sustained at the full duty amount where the provision had already been held ultra vires by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The assessee's duty liability under Rule 96ZQ(1) was not disputed, but the only issue was the quantum of penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii). A Supreme Court ruling upholding penalty under the rule did not assist the Revenue because vires was not considered there. The enhanced penalty equal to duty was therefore not justified and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246422