Delegated rules cannot create interest liability without statutory authority; strict compliance is required for excise abatement.

Interest under Rule 96ZO was held unenforceable because Section 3A of the Central Excise Act contained no substantive charging provision authorising interest; delegated rules could not create that liability in a compound levy scheme. The assessee failed on the challenge to annual production capacity because that determination had not been specifically assailed before the tribunal, and the plea that power cuts were ignored could not justify interference. Abatement under Section 3A(3) and Rule 96ZO(2) was denied because the prescribed procedure for continuous closure, including mandatory intimations and declarations, was not strictly followed. The excise demand was sustained, while the interest levy was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest could be levied under Rule 96ZO when Section 3A of the Central Excise Act did not contain a substantive provision for levy of interest; (ii) Whether the determination of annual production capacity could be disturbed on the ground that power cuts and power outages were not taken into account; (iii) Whether abatement under Section 3A(3) and Rule 96ZO(2) was available without compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Issue (i): Whether interest could be levied under Rule 96ZO when Section 3A of the Central Excise Act did not contain a substantive provision for levy of interest

Analysis: Interest on delayed payment of duty can be levied only when the parent enactment contains a substantive charging provision for such interest. The compound levy scheme under Section 3A is a self-contained code, and the rules framed under it cannot create a liability for interest in the absence of legislative support in the Act. The ruling in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills was applied to hold that the rules could not sustain the levy of interest.

Conclusion: The levy of interest was illegal and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the determination of annual production capacity could be disturbed on the ground that power cuts and power outages were not taken into account

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had not specifically challenged the determination of annual production capacity before the appellate tribunal. In the absence of a clear challenge to that determination, the contention that power cuts were ignored could not be treated as a basis for interference in the appeal. The authorities and the tribunal had proceeded on the footing that the capacity determination remained unassailed.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to relief on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether abatement under Section 3A(3) and Rule 96ZO(2) was available without compliance with the prescribed procedure

Analysis: Abatement for a continuous period of closure required strict compliance with the conditions in Rule 96ZO(2), including written intimation of closure, meter readings, reopening intimation, and the prescribed declarations. There was no material to show that these mandatory conditions had been fulfilled or that abatement had been validly claimed in the manner prescribed. The attempt to combine procedures under different sub-rules was impermissible and amounted to an unsupported hybrid procedure.

Conclusion: Abatement was rightly denied and the assessee failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The levy of interest was quashed, but the demand of excise duty was sustained. The appeal succeeded only in part, and the connected application did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest cannot be levied under delegated rules governing a compound levy scheme unless the parent statute itself contains a substantive provision authorising such levy, and statutory abatement under a special excise scheme is available only on strict compliance with the prescribed conditions.

---