Omission of excise provisions defeated continued liability to duty, penalty and interest; Supreme Court ruling settled the issue.

Liability to duty, penalty and interest under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be sustained after omission of those provisions, and Section 38A did not preserve the omitted levy in the manner contended by the Revenue. The Tribunal had followed earlier High Court authority, and the Supreme Court's later decision was treated as having settled the controversy against the Revenue. In light of that settled position, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether liability to duty, penalty and interest could be sustained under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after the omission of the rule and Section 3A, and whether Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 saved such omission.

Analysis: The Tribunal had relied on earlier High Court authority on the effect of omission of the relevant excise provisions. The legal issue was stated to have been settled by the Supreme Court in the later decision cited before the Court, and the Revenue fairly accepted that the controversy now stood concluded against it. In that situation, no further examination of the questions raised was necessary.

Conclusion: The questions were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, with the result that the appeal was dismissed.

---