https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128239 Penalty proceedings under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) were remanded for fresh consideration because the validity of the rule was still under challenge before the High Courts. The matter had earlier been sent back in light of Dharamendra Textile Processors, but the later Supreme Court decision in Krishna Processors revived the vires challenge, making final determination on penalty inappropriate at that stage. The Original Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide the issue again after the High Court's ruling on validity, and the assessee remained free to contest the case on merits. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128239 Penalty proceedings under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) were remanded for fresh consideration because the validity of the rule was still under challenge before the High Courts. The matter had earlier been sent back in light of Dharamendra Textile Processors, but the later Supreme Court decision in Krishna Processors revived the vires challenge, making final determination on penalty inappropriate at that stage. The Original Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide the issue again after the High Court's ruling on validity, and the assessee remained free to contest the case on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128239