https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235670 Penal proceedings for failure to discharge monthly duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) were held time-barred once five years had expired. The issue was confined to whether penalty action could still be initiated beyond that period, and the analysis treated the point as settled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Concast (P) Ltd. and a later related authority. On that settled position, the Revenue's limitation objection did not survive, and initiation of penalty proceedings after five years was impermissible. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235670 Penal proceedings for failure to discharge monthly duty liability under Rule 96ZP(3) were held time-barred once five years had expired. The issue was confined to whether penalty action could still be initiated beyond that period, and the analysis treated the point as settled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Concast (P) Ltd. and a later related authority. On that settled position, the Revenue's limitation objection did not survive, and initiation of penalty proceedings after five years was impermissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235670