https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99714 Mandatory penalty and interest provisions under Rules 57U(6) and 57R(8) were treated as prospective, so they could not be applied to a period before their insertion merely because the show cause notice was issued later. The later notice did not change the legal position that no such liability existed when the alleged contravention occurred. The Board's circular was binding only on departmental officers in an administrative sense and could not control the independent judgment of quasi-judicial authorities, who must decide according to law and binding precedent. Existing Tribunal decisions were followed, the remand for de novo consideration was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:40:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99714 Mandatory penalty and interest provisions under Rules 57U(6) and 57R(8) were treated as prospective, so they could not be applied to a period before their insertion merely because the show cause notice was issued later. The later notice did not change the legal position that no such liability existed when the alleged contravention occurred. The Board's circular was binding only on departmental officers in an administrative sense and could not control the independent judgment of quasi-judicial authorities, who must decide according to law and binding precedent. Existing Tribunal decisions were followed, the remand for de novo consideration was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99714