https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50356 Rule 96ZQ(5) was treated as creating liability to penalty, but not as compelling an automatic penalty equal to the entire duty outstanding in every case; the authority retained discretion to impose a lesser amount where the circumstances justified it. A later abatement order, granted after the relevant month, was not accepted as operating retrospectively to alter the March 1999 penalty computation, yet the factual setting showed no deliberate delay and operational difficulties in monthly payment, warranting reduction of the penalty to a nominal figure. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:41:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50356 Rule 96ZQ(5) was treated as creating liability to penalty, but not as compelling an automatic penalty equal to the entire duty outstanding in every case; the authority retained discretion to impose a lesser amount where the circumstances justified it. A later abatement order, granted after the relevant month, was not accepted as operating retrospectively to alter the March 1999 penalty computation, yet the factual setting showed no deliberate delay and operational difficulties in monthly payment, warranting reduction of the penalty to a nominal figure. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50356