https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340905 Under the compound levy framework, penalty or interest cannot be imposed unless the governing statute or rule contains an express substantive authorisation. Applying that principle to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal held that the third proviso did not permit a penalty equivalent to duty and could not be used to levy interest on the outstanding duty amount. The self-contained nature of the Section 3A scheme prevented enlargement of liability by general provisions or by reading in powers not expressly provided. The Revenue's demand for penalty failed, and the assessee succeeded on the challenge to interest. en-us Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340905 Under the compound levy framework, penalty or interest cannot be imposed unless the governing statute or rule contains an express substantive authorisation. Applying that principle to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Tribunal held that the third proviso did not permit a penalty equivalent to duty and could not be used to levy interest on the outstanding duty amount. The self-contained nature of the Section 3A scheme prevented enlargement of liability by general provisions or by reading in powers not expressly provided. The Revenue's demand for penalty failed, and the assessee succeeded on the challenge to interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340905