https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2214 Penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the annual capacity of production was later refixed pursuant to remand and the duty had already been paid before that refixation. Once the duty stood discharged before the revised capacity determination, no amount remained due from the assessees and the foundation for penalty disappeared. The impugned orders therefore required no interference, and the appeals failed. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2214 Penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the annual capacity of production was later refixed pursuant to remand and the duty had already been paid before that refixation. Once the duty stood discharged before the revised capacity determination, no amount remained due from the assessees and the foundation for penalty disappeared. The impugned orders therefore required no interference, and the appeals failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2214