https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249886 A penalty demand under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the rule forming the basis of liability had been declared ultra vires and therefore void. The Court held that its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act is confined to the statutory scheme, and that the machinery provisions cannot be used to enforce a levy founded on a non-existent provision. As the substantial questions of law no longer survived once the underlying rule was struck down, the appeals failed and the penalty demand was not maintainable. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:20:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249886 A penalty demand under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the rule forming the basis of liability had been declared ultra vires and therefore void. The Court held that its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act is confined to the statutory scheme, and that the machinery provisions cannot be used to enforce a levy founded on a non-existent provision. As the substantial questions of law no longer survived once the underlying rule was struck down, the appeals failed and the penalty demand was not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249886