Penalty under compounded levy rules was unsustainable after invalidation of interest and penalty provisions.

Penalty under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable because the Supreme Court had already invalidated the interest and penalty provisions under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ. Applying that settled position, no penalty could survive against an assessee governed by the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed, and the order dropping penalty was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The penalty issue was treated as settled by the Supreme Court's decision holding the interest and penalty provisions under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to be invalid. Once that legal position applied, no penalty could survive against the assessee under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 96ZQ was not sustainable and the assessee was entitled to succeed on that issue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the order dropping penalty was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty provisions under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are invalid and cannot be enforced to impose penalty.

---