Compounded levy, interest and penalty rules: omitted provisions preserve past liability, but rule-based interest and rigid penalties fail

Omission of compounded levy provisions was treated as a repeal for saving purposes, so liabilities accrued while the scheme operated were not extinguished, and an interest demand raised within three years of the last acknowledged payment was not time-barred. Interest could not be imposed by rules where Section 3A of the Central Excise Act contained no substantive interest provision, making the rule-based levy invalid. The mandatory penalty equal to duty under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ was held ultra vires and unconstitutional because it was rigid, excessive, and arbitrary. Sanctioned electrical load was recognised as a relevant factor in determining induction furnace capacity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether omission of the compounded levy provisions and the related rules wiped out liabilities incurred while they were in force and whether the demand for interest was time-barred; (ii) whether interest could be levied under the Central Excise Rules when Section 3A of the Central Excise Act did not itself provide for interest; (iii) whether the mandatory penalty equal to the duty under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ was valid; and (iv) whether sanctioned electrical load was a relevant factor for determining the capacity of an induction furnace.

Issue (i): Whether omission of the compounded levy provisions and the related rules wiped out liabilities incurred while they were in force and whether the demand for interest was time-barred.

Analysis: The omission of a provision was treated as a form of repeal for the purpose of saving accrued rights and liabilities under the General Clauses Act. On that basis, liabilities arising during the currency of the scheme were not extinguished merely because the provision was later omitted. On limitation, the demand for interest was raised within three years from the last payment acknowledged by the assessee, so the demand was not barred by time.

Conclusion: The omission did not wipe out past liability, and the demand was not time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether interest could be levied under the Central Excise Rules when Section 3A of the Central Excise Act did not itself provide for interest.

Analysis: Interest on delayed tax or duty can be levied only when the charging statute makes a substantive provision for it. A subordinate rule cannot create an independent liability for interest in the absence of statutory authority. Since Section 3A did not provide for interest, the rule-based levy could not stand.

Conclusion: The levy of interest under the rules was invalid and unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the mandatory penalty equal to the duty under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ was valid.

Analysis: The penalty provisions were mandatory, inflexible and equal to the entire duty even for minimal delay. That made the classification unreasonable and arbitrary, and the burden imposed was excessive when compared with the limited penalty framework in the parent Act. The rules were therefore beyond the rule-making power and also infringed the constitutional guarantees against arbitrariness and unreasonable restriction on trade or business.

Conclusion: The mandatory penalty provisions in Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ were struck down as ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Issue (iv): Whether sanctioned electrical load was a relevant factor for determining the capacity of an induction furnace.

Analysis: The determination of annual capacity under the relevant rules was not confined to the invoice alone. Relevant material bearing on actual furnace capacity could be considered where the direct documents were unavailable. Sanctioned electrical load was a relevant circumstance for assessing furnace capacity.

Conclusion: Sanctioned electrical load was a relevant consideration for capacity determination.

Final Conclusion: The batch was disposed of by upholding the assessees' challenge to the rule-based levy of interest and mandatory penalty, while sustaining the view that omitted provisions did not erase past liabilities and that sanctioned electrical load could be considered for furnace capacity assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Omission of a statutory provision is treated as repeal for saving purposes, but subordinate legislation cannot impose interest or mandatory penalty without a substantive statutory basis, and a rigid penalty equal to duty is invalid when it is arbitrary and excessive.

---