https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335450 Clearances were to be assessed on a cum-duty basis where the governing valuation rule so required, and the Revenue's challenge failed because the issue was already covered against it. Interest and mandatory penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC could not be applied to a period before their commencement on 28.09.1996, as retrospective levy requires clear statutory language. The Tribunal's view was consistent with binding precedent, so the Court declined interference and sustained dismissal of the Revenue's challenge in full. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Sep 2018 12:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335450 Clearances were to be assessed on a cum-duty basis where the governing valuation rule so required, and the Revenue's challenge failed because the issue was already covered against it. Interest and mandatory penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC could not be applied to a period before their commencement on 28.09.1996, as retrospective levy requires clear statutory language. The Tribunal's view was consistent with binding precedent, so the Court declined interference and sustained dismissal of the Revenue's challenge in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335450