https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76932 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) in the compounded levy scheme was held to operate independently of the limitation framework in Section 11A and the penalty mechanism in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The absence of an express limitation period in Rule 96ZO did not permit importing the extended-period requirements or a general reasonable-time doctrine into these proceedings, because the rule governed a distinct statutory context. Mere delay by the revenue authorities in initiating action did not create a defence for the defaulter or bar the statutory penalty. The challenge to the penalty on the ground of delay therefore failed, and the penalty was upheld. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76932 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) in the compounded levy scheme was held to operate independently of the limitation framework in Section 11A and the penalty mechanism in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The absence of an express limitation period in Rule 96ZO did not permit importing the extended-period requirements or a general reasonable-time doctrine into these proceedings, because the rule governed a distinct statutory context. Mere delay by the revenue authorities in initiating action did not create a defence for the defaulter or bar the statutory penalty. The challenge to the penalty on the ground of delay 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=76932