https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259259 The case involved a dispute over Central Excise duty liability under a compounded levy scheme. The appellant's challenge to the differential duty amount demand was initially rejected by the Commissioner, who imposed a penalty under Rule 96 ZO (3). The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty. On appeal to the High Court, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further consideration. The Tribunal ultimately reduced the penalty amount significantly, citing the unconstitutionality of the penalty provision under Rule 96 ZO (3). The judgment focused on legal interpretations of penalty provisions and constitutional validity in the context of Central Excise duty liability. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259259 The case involved a dispute over Central Excise duty liability under a compounded levy scheme. The appellant's challenge to the differential duty amount demand was initially rejected by the Commissioner, who imposed a penalty under Rule 96 ZO (3). The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty. On appeal to the High Court, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further consideration. The Tribunal ultimately reduced the penalty amount significantly, citing the unconstitutionality of the penalty provision under Rule 96 ZO (3). The judgment focused on legal interpretations of penalty provisions and constitutional validity in the context of Central Excise duty liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259259