https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239607 Demand of duty and penalties under Rule 96ZQ and Section 3A could not survive after omission of the relevant provisions, because the challenge went to the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction to proceed. The Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's view on continuation or initiation of proceedings after omission of the rule and related provision, and held that the Supreme Court decision relied on by the Revenue did not decide this jurisdictional issue. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Nov 2013 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239607 Demand of duty and penalties under Rule 96ZQ and Section 3A could not survive after omission of the relevant provisions, because the challenge went to the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction to proceed. The Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's view on continuation or initiation of proceedings after omission of the rule and related provision, and held that the Supreme Court decision relied on by the Revenue did not decide this jurisdictional issue. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239607