https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184848 Conflicting Tribunal and High Court views on whether omission of Section 3A extinguished proceedings under Rule 96ZP(3), together with the effect of Section 38A's saving provision, required reconsideration by a Division Bench. The analysis noted that the Revenue's challenge concerned non-imposition of penalty equal to the outstanding duty, while the assessee's appeals raised separate questions on the doctrine of merger and the scope of the dispute. In light of the divergent authorities on survival of accrued liability after omission of the enabling provision, the papers were directed to be placed before the President for appropriate reference. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:41:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184848 Conflicting Tribunal and High Court views on whether omission of Section 3A extinguished proceedings under Rule 96ZP(3), together with the effect of Section 38A's saving provision, required reconsideration by a Division Bench. The analysis noted that the Revenue's challenge concerned non-imposition of penalty equal to the outstanding duty, while the assessee's appeals raised separate questions on the doctrine of merger and the scope of the dispute. In light of the divergent authorities on survival of accrued liability after omission of the enabling provision, the papers were directed to be placed before the President for appropriate reference. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184848