https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265008 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act did not, by itself, terminate pending compounded levy proceedings because the saving framework under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 preserved them. On the merits, a declaration filed under Rule 96ZP(4) was found on record, so a duty demand for the pre-1/1/1999 period based on alleged non-filing could not stand. The same factual basis also could not support penalty for that period once filing of the declaration was accepted. The impugned demand was therefore not sustainable on the stated ground, and the deletion of penalty was upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:41:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265008 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act did not, by itself, terminate pending compounded levy proceedings because the saving framework under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 preserved them. On the merits, a declaration filed under Rule 96ZP(4) was found on record, so a duty demand for the pre-1/1/1999 period based on alleged non-filing could not stand. The same factual basis also could not support penalty for that period once filing of the declaration was accepted. The impugned demand was therefore not sustainable on the stated ground, and the deletion of penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265008