https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112354 A penalty for short payment of central excise duty for August 1994 could not be sustained under Section 11AC because that provision was not in force for the relevant default. The appellate authority also could not uphold the penalty by shifting the basis to Rule 173Q(1) when the original adjudication had proceeded on a different footing. The operative effect was that the penalty failed under both provisions, as the liability could not be retrospectively tested under Section 11AC and the appellate confirmation under an alternative rule was impermissible in the circumstances. en-us Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:23:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112354 A penalty for short payment of central excise duty for August 1994 could not be sustained under Section 11AC because that provision was not in force for the relevant default. The appellate authority also could not uphold the penalty by shifting the basis to Rule 173Q(1) when the original adjudication had proceeded on a different footing. The operative effect was that the penalty failed under both provisions, as the liability could not be retrospectively tested under Section 11AC and the appellate confirmation under an alternative rule was impermissible in the circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112354