https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337941 Liability to duty, penalty and interest under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be sustained after omission of those provisions, and Section 38A did not preserve the omitted levy in the manner contended by the Revenue. The Tribunal had followed earlier High Court authority, and the Supreme Court's later decision was treated as having settled the controversy against the Revenue. In light of that settled position, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:21:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337941 Liability to duty, penalty and interest under Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be sustained after omission of those provisions, and Section 38A did not preserve the omitted levy in the manner contended by the Revenue. The Tribunal had followed earlier High Court authority, and the Supreme Court's later decision was treated as having settled the controversy against the Revenue. In light of that settled position, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337941