https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247864 A penalty under the compounded levy scheme was not invalidated merely because the show cause notice referred to Section 11AC while the penalty was imposed under Rule 96ZP(1), since no prejudice was shown and the competent authority had jurisdiction to invoke the penal provision. The claimed benefit of reduced penalty under the proviso to Section 11AC was unavailable because that proviso operated only from 12-5-2000 and could not apply retrospectively. The factual finding that the production-capacity parameter had changed without proper intimation, despite a later plea of normal wear and tear, sustained the conclusion of deliberate non-disclosure and the penalty. en-us Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 25 May 2014 13:36:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247864 A penalty under the compounded levy scheme was not invalidated merely because the show cause notice referred to Section 11AC while the penalty was imposed under Rule 96ZP(1), since no prejudice was shown and the competent authority had jurisdiction to invoke the penal provision. The claimed benefit of reduced penalty under the proviso to Section 11AC was unavailable because that proviso operated only from 12-5-2000 and could not apply retrospectively. The factual finding that the production-capacity parameter had changed without proper intimation, despite a later plea of normal wear and tear, sustained the conclusion of deliberate non-disclosure and the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247864