Delegated rules cannot independently authorise interest without parent statutory charging power; demand under Rule 96ZP(3) failed.

Interest demanded under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained once that rule had been struck down, because the demand rested only on the delegated rule and not on any substantive charging provision in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of parent statutory authority to levy interest, the rule could not independently create or support the demand. The impugned communication was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest demanded under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could survive after the rule had been struck down, and whether such levy was sustainable in the absence of a substantive charging provision under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The demand for interest was founded solely on Rule 96ZP(3). The governing rule had already been declared invalid, and the principal statutory scheme under Section 3A did not itself contain a provision authorising levy of interest. In the absence of such substantive statutory support, the delegated rule could not independently sustain the impugned interest demand.

Conclusion: The interest demand was unsustainable and the impugned communication was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule cannot independently authorise a levy of interest unless the parent statute contains substantive charging authority for such levy.

---