https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211415 The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the second proviso to Rule 4(3) of the Central Excise (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 is not ultra vires the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, and does not frustrate the statutory right of appeal under Section 35G of the Act. The court found that the proviso aligns with the legislative intent and purpose of compounding, with the conditions for compounding deemed reasonable and not burdensome. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211415 The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the second proviso to Rule 4(3) of the Central Excise (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 is not ultra vires the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, and does not frustrate the statutory right of appeal under Section 35G of the Act. The court found that the proviso aligns with the legislative intent and purpose of compounding, with the conditions for compounding deemed reasonable and not burdensome. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211415