https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76863 Penalty under Rule 96ZO for delayed payment of compounded levy duty was held to operate within its own statutory framework, distinct from Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The absence of an express limitation period in Rule 96ZO did not permit importing Section 11A's recovery or extended-limitation structure, and delay by the authorities in starting proceedings did not create a right to escape the statutory consequence. The challenge based on long delay and reasonable period therefore failed, and the penalty was upheld. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76863 Penalty under Rule 96ZO for delayed payment of compounded levy duty was held to operate within its own statutory framework, distinct from Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The absence of an express limitation period in Rule 96ZO did not permit importing Section 11A's recovery or extended-limitation structure, and delay by the authorities in starting proceedings did not create a right to escape the statutory consequence. The challenge based on long delay and reasonable period therefore failed, and the penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76863