Limitation on penalty proceedings under excise rules bars action after five years for delayed monthly duty payment.

Penal proceedings for failure to discharge monthly duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) were held time-barred once five years had expired. The issue was confined to whether penalty action could still be initiated beyond that period, and the analysis treated the point as settled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Concast (P) Ltd. and a later related authority. On that settled position, the Revenue's limitation objection did not survive, and initiation of penalty proceedings after five years was impermissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether penal proceedings under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for failure to discharge monthly duty liability by the due date could be initiated after expiry of five years.

Analysis: The controversy was confined to the availability of penalty proceedings beyond five years under Rule 96ZP(3). The point was treated as already settled by the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Concast (P) Ltd. and the later related authority relied upon by the respondent. In light of that settled position, the limitation objection raised by the Revenue did not survive.

Conclusion: Penal proceedings under Rule 96ZP(3) could not be initiated after expiry of five years, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---