https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268363 Omission of compounded levy provisions was treated as a repeal for saving purposes, so liabilities accrued while the scheme operated were not extinguished, and an interest demand raised within three years of the last acknowledged payment was not time-barred. Interest could not be imposed by rules where Section 3A of the Central Excise Act contained no substantive interest provision, making the rule-based levy invalid. The mandatory penalty equal to duty under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ was held ultra vires and unconstitutional because it was rigid, excessive, and arbitrary. Sanctioned electrical load was recognised as a relevant factor in determining induction furnace capacity. en-us Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268363 Omission of compounded levy provisions was treated as a repeal for saving purposes, so liabilities accrued while the scheme operated were not extinguished, and an interest demand raised within three years of the last acknowledged payment was not time-barred. Interest could not be imposed by rules where Section 3A of the Central Excise Act contained no substantive interest provision, making the rule-based levy invalid. The mandatory penalty equal to duty under Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ was held ultra vires and unconstitutional because it was rigid, excessive, and arbitrary. Sanctioned electrical load was recognised as a relevant factor in determining induction furnace capacity. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268363