Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5) remanded pending vires challenge, with fresh consideration to follow the High Court's ruling.

Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5) could not be treated as finally determined while the vires challenge to that rule remained pending. Because the dispute depended on the legality of the rule itself, the earlier penalty order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after the High Court decides the vires issue. The Original Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider both the penalty and its quantum in light of the eventual declaration of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 96ZQ(5) was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded in view of the pending challenge to the vires of the rule.

Analysis: The appeal turned solely on the penalty imposed under Rule 96ZQ(5). In view of the pendency of the challenge to the vires of the rule and the direction to await declaration of law by the High Court, the earlier order could not be sustained as a final determination of penalty. The proper course was to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh decision after the vires issue was decided.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of penalty and its quantum after the High Court decided the challenge to the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5).

---