https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119238 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without a saving clause meant that proceedings under Rule 96ZO could not continue, because the subordinate levy machinery could not survive once the parent charging provision disappeared. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was treated as inapplicable in this context, and Section 38A could not preserve proceedings where the substantive source of levy had been omitted. The interest and penalty components in Rule 96ZO(3) were also held to lack express statutory authority, since a general rule-making power could not independently create such liabilities. The rule was therefore treated as ultra vires and unenforceable. en-us Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:12:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119238 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without a saving clause meant that proceedings under Rule 96ZO could not continue, because the subordinate levy machinery could not survive once the parent charging provision disappeared. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was treated as inapplicable in this context, and Section 38A could not preserve proceedings where the substantive source of levy had been omitted. The interest and penalty components in Rule 96ZO(3) were also held to lack express statutory authority, since a general rule-making power could not independently create such liabilities. The rule was therefore treated as ultra vires and unenforceable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119238