https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325990 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the rule had already been declared ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court and that position was followed in later decisions. The Tribunal held that once the source provision for the penalty was invalid, no enforcement of penalty could survive under it, and the special compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not preserve the impugned penalty. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed and the order deleting the penalties was upheld. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2016 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325990 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the rule had already been declared ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court and that position was followed in later decisions. The Tribunal held that once the source provision for the penalty was invalid, no enforcement of penalty could survive under it, and the special compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not preserve the impugned penalty. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed and the order deleting the penalties was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325990