https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251688 Retrospective validation under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act sustained recovery of duty, interest, penalty and other charges arising under the compounded levy scheme despite the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules. The Madras HC treated the validating amendment as deeming actions taken under the earlier notifications to be valid for all purposes, so the assessee could not rely on the omission or the absence of a saving clause to avoid liability. The challenge to levy of interest and penalty therefore failed under the validated statutory framework. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2016 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251688 Retrospective validation under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act sustained recovery of duty, interest, penalty and other charges arising under the compounded levy scheme despite the omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules. The Madras HC treated the validating amendment as deeming actions taken under the earlier notifications to be valid for all purposes, so the assessee could not rely on the omission or the absence of a saving clause to avoid liability. The challenge to levy of interest and penalty therefore failed under the validated statutory framework. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251688