https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=727 The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 27 but reduced it to the prescribed maximum of Rs. 5,000. The interest demand under Rule 8(3) was confirmed but limited to not exceed the amount of duty owed. The retrospective application of the provision for Rs. 1,000 per day interest was rejected, and the phrase was deemed ultra vires and unenforceable. The tribunal modified the interest liability to be calculated at 2% per month, excluding the Rs. 1,000 per day provision, and remanded the case for recalculation. The appeal was partly allowed with these modifications. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=727 The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 27 but reduced it to the prescribed maximum of Rs. 5,000. The interest demand under Rule 8(3) was confirmed but limited to not exceed the amount of duty owed. The retrospective application of the provision for Rs. 1,000 per day interest was rejected, and the phrase was deemed ultra vires and unenforceable. The tribunal modified the interest liability to be calculated at 2% per month, excluding the Rs. 1,000 per day provision, and remanded the case for recalculation. The appeal was partly allowed with these modifications. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=727