https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333549 Differential duty arising from annual capacity determination under Rule 5 of the Hot-re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was sustained because the jurisdictional High Court had already upheld the rule and no stay operated from the Supreme Court. The pending civil appeals did not justify setting aside the consequential demand. By contrast, the levy of interest and penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was unsustainable because the Supreme Court had struck down the mandatory penalty component for lack of statutory authority. The duty demand was therefore upheld, while the interest and penalty component was set aside. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:33:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333549 Differential duty arising from annual capacity determination under Rule 5 of the Hot-re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 was sustained because the jurisdictional High Court had already upheld the rule and no stay operated from the Supreme Court. The pending civil appeals did not justify setting aside the consequential demand. By contrast, the levy of interest and penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was unsustainable because the Supreme Court had struck down the mandatory penalty component for lack of statutory authority. The duty demand was therefore upheld, while the interest and penalty component was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333549