https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220173 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was held prima facie to exceed the rule-making power under the Central Excise Act, 1944 because Section 11AC confines penalty to the person liable to pay duty as determined under Section 11A(2), while Rule 26 extends penalty to persons dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Applying the principle that penalty can be imposed only by authority of law, the Court found the impugned rule apparently wider than the enabling provision and granted interim protection against enforcement of the penalty order. en-us Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:37:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220173 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was held prima facie to exceed the rule-making power under the Central Excise Act, 1944 because Section 11AC confines penalty to the person liable to pay duty as determined under Section 11A(2), while Rule 26 extends penalty to persons dealing with excisable goods liable to confiscation. Applying the principle that penalty can be imposed only by authority of law, the Court found the impugned rule apparently wider than the enabling provision and granted interim protection against enforcement of the penalty order. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220173