https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167500 The tribunal found in favor of reinstating the Assistant Collector's order, affirming the liability for special excise duty under Section 37(1) of the Finance Act, 1978, in addition to the duty under Rule 96-ZI. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was deemed incorrect in accepting the respondents' argument that the payment under Rule 96-ZI discharged their total duty liability, as the special excise duty was considered an additional obligation. The tribunal emphasized that the compounded levy under Rule 96-ZI, while governed by a notification, did not exempt manufacturers from the special excise duty imposed by the Finance Act, 1978. en-us Wed, 26 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:15:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167500 The tribunal found in favor of reinstating the Assistant Collector's order, affirming the liability for special excise duty under Section 37(1) of the Finance Act, 1978, in addition to the duty under Rule 96-ZI. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was deemed incorrect in accepting the respondents' argument that the payment under Rule 96-ZI discharged their total duty liability, as the special excise duty was considered an additional obligation. The tribunal emphasized that the compounded levy under Rule 96-ZI, while governed by a notification, did not exempt manufacturers from the special excise duty imposed by the Finance Act, 1978. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167500