https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263537 A writ challenge to a penalty order was barred because the same adjudication had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, and the later order did not permit reopening the issue. The court also held that omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZO did not invalidate penalties imposed when they were in force, because Section 111 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 retrospectively validated actions taken under the earlier regime. The penalty therefore remained valid and no interference was warranted. en-us Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Oct 2015 17:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263537 A writ challenge to a penalty order was barred because the same adjudication had already been upheld by the Supreme Court, and the later order did not permit reopening the issue. The court also held that omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZO did not invalidate penalties imposed when they were in force, because Section 111 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 retrospectively validated actions taken under the earlier regime. The penalty therefore remained valid and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263537