https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332109 Duty arising during a compounded levy scheme had to be paid in the manner prescribed under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO, because the scheme operated as a self-contained code and general CENVAT credit provisions did not apply to liabilities incurred within that period. The assessee therefore could not use CENVAT credit earned after the scheme period to discharge that duty, and the demand on that basis was upheld. However, the penalty imposed for default under Rule 96ZO(3) could not survive because that penalty provision had already been struck down by the Supreme Court in relation to the same scheme, so the penalty was set aside. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332109 Duty arising during a compounded levy scheme had to be paid in the manner prescribed under Section 3A and Rule 96ZO, because the scheme operated as a self-contained code and general CENVAT credit provisions did not apply to liabilities incurred within that period. The assessee therefore could not use CENVAT credit earned after the scheme period to discharge that duty, and the demand on that basis was upheld. However, the penalty imposed for default under Rule 96ZO(3) could not survive because that penalty provision had already been struck down by the Supreme Court in relation to the same scheme, so the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332109