https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193921 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) could not be sustained once the Supreme Court had struck down the rule, because the legal foundation for the levy ceased to exist. The Bombay HC treated the Supreme Court's ruling as binding and applied it to the pending appeal, which meant the Revenue could not rely on the invalid rule to support the penalty. The appeal was dismissed in line with that authoritative position. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193921 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) could not be sustained once the Supreme Court had struck down the rule, because the legal foundation for the levy ceased to exist. The Bombay HC treated the Supreme Court's ruling as binding and applied it to the pending appeal, which meant the Revenue could not rely on the invalid rule to support the penalty. The appeal was dismissed in line with that authoritative position. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193921