https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108425 An amendment to the Compounded Levy Scheme was held not to operate retrospectively so as to revive differential duty on goods already manufactured and for which monthly duty had been discharged before the notification took effect; the duty demand was therefore unsustainable. Penalties on the company and its directors also failed because, once no differential duty survived, the penalty foundation disappeared, and the remand proceedings could not be used to enlarge the scope of liability beyond the terms of remand. The order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, with no duty or penalties surviving. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:10:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108425 An amendment to the Compounded Levy Scheme was held not to operate retrospectively so as to revive differential duty on goods already manufactured and for which monthly duty had been discharged before the notification took effect; the duty demand was therefore unsustainable. Penalties on the company and its directors also failed because, once no differential duty survived, the penalty foundation disappeared, and the remand proceedings could not be used to enlarge the scope of liability beyond the terms of remand. The order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, with no duty or penalties surviving. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108425