https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218939 Omission of the compounded levy rules and the parent charging provision without a saving clause meant no fresh proceedings could be initiated and pending proceedings not finally concluded could not be continued. The machinery rules depended on the omitted charging provision, and Section 38A did not preserve proceedings after omission of Section 3A. The Court also held that the penalty provision mandating a penalty equal to the duty outstanding for every default, without any discretion or regard to delay, cause or gravity, was arbitrary, exceeded the rule-making power, and was ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265. en-us Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218939 Omission of the compounded levy rules and the parent charging provision without a saving clause meant no fresh proceedings could be initiated and pending proceedings not finally concluded could not be continued. The machinery rules depended on the omitted charging provision, and Section 38A did not preserve proceedings after omission of Section 3A. The Court also held that the penalty provision mandating a penalty equal to the duty outstanding for every default, without any discretion or regard to delay, cause or gravity, was arbitrary, exceeded the rule-making power, and was ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218939