https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1024 Non-challenge to the capacity determination letter did not bar the appeal because the demand was raised under Rule 96ZO(3), not the earlier capacity order. Proceedings under the scheme could not continue after omission of Section 3A and Rule 96ZO without any saving provision, as subordinate legislation cannot survive the disappearance of its parent authority unless expressly preserved. The interest and penalty provisions in Rule 96ZO(3) were also beyond delegated rule-making power because substantive fiscal liabilities require clear statutory authority. The demand and consequential liabilities under the impugned scheme were therefore set aside, and the cross-objection became infructuous. en-us Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1024 Non-challenge to the capacity determination letter did not bar the appeal because the demand was raised under Rule 96ZO(3), not the earlier capacity order. Proceedings under the scheme could not continue after omission of Section 3A and Rule 96ZO without any saving provision, as subordinate legislation cannot survive the disappearance of its parent authority unless expressly preserved. The interest and penalty provisions in Rule 96ZO(3) were also beyond delegated rule-making power because substantive fiscal liabilities require clear statutory authority. The demand and consequential liabilities under the impugned scheme were therefore set aside, and the cross-objection became infructuous. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1024