https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265869 Duty demand raised solely under Rule 96ZQ for the period when the hot air stenter was closed and sealed could not be sustained after the governing rules had been struck down as ultra vires. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions and the High Court's ruling, and rejected the lower appellate authority's contrary view. Procedural non-compliance with the abatement process, including the argument that duty had to be paid first and abatement claimed later, did not revive an invalid demand. The duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside and the assessee obtained relief. en-us Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265869 Duty demand raised solely under Rule 96ZQ for the period when the hot air stenter was closed and sealed could not be sustained after the governing rules had been struck down as ultra vires. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions and the High Court's ruling, and rejected the lower appellate authority's contrary view. Procedural non-compliance with the abatement process, including the argument that duty had to be paid first and abatement claimed later, did not revive an invalid demand. The duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside and the assessee obtained relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265869