https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270140 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was unsustainable because the assessee had disputed the annual capacity determination from the outset and the duty position crystallised only after the Supreme Court finally settled the issue in favour of the Revenue; absent wilful default, the penalty was set aside. Interest on the differential duty was still payable because the liability arose once the duty became crystallised and payment was delayed, with computation to run from the prescribed period after service of the order-in-original. The appeal therefore succeeded only on deletion of penalty, while interest liability was sustained. en-us Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:57:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270140 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was unsustainable because the assessee had disputed the annual capacity determination from the outset and the duty position crystallised only after the Supreme Court finally settled the issue in favour of the Revenue; absent wilful default, the penalty was set aside. Interest on the differential duty was still payable because the liability arose once the duty became crystallised and payment was delayed, with computation to run from the prescribed period after service of the order-in-original. The appeal therefore succeeded only on deletion of penalty, while interest liability was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270140