https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171433 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP did not extinguish liabilities incurred before their repeal, because Section 38A was treated as preserving obligations and liabilities arising under those provisions. The Madras HC followed the Larger Bench view of the Tribunal that Section 38A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, saved pre-omission liabilities under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. It also noted that earlier relief had been refused in an identical matter where there was no challenge to the validity of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. On that basis, the writ petitions were dismissed. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:48:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171433 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rules 96ZO and 96ZP did not extinguish liabilities incurred before their repeal, because Section 38A was treated as preserving obligations and liabilities arising under those provisions. The Madras HC followed the Larger Bench view of the Tribunal that Section 38A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, saved pre-omission liabilities under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. It also noted that earlier relief had been refused in an identical matter where there was no challenge to the validity of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. On that basis, the writ petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171433