https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47021 Delayed payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme triggered the penalty prescribed by the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3), because liability arose on the default itself when duty was not paid by the 10th day of the month. Payment of duty and interest before issuance of the show cause notice did not erase the statutory breach, and the timing of notice was irrelevant to the penalty consequence. The provision was treated as mandating a fixed penalty equal to the outstanding duty or Rs. 5,000, whichever was greater, so the Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was found inconsistent with the rule. en-us Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47021 Delayed payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme triggered the penalty prescribed by the fourth proviso to Rule 96ZP(3), because liability arose on the default itself when duty was not paid by the 10th day of the month. Payment of duty and interest before issuance of the show cause notice did not erase the statutory breach, and the timing of notice was irrelevant to the penalty consequence. The provision was treated as mandating a fixed penalty equal to the outstanding duty or Rs. 5,000, whichever was greater, so the Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was found inconsistent with the rule. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47021