https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350812 After omission of Rule 96-ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, interest and penalty imposed solely under that rule could not be sustained for the disputed period. The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's view that, although the underlying duty liability under the compounded levy scheme could survive, ancillary interest and penalty did not continue unless expressly preserved by law. On that basis, the interest and penalty demand was deleted, while the remaining duty-related consequences were left undisturbed in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 04:38:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350812 After omission of Rule 96-ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, interest and penalty imposed solely under that rule could not be sustained for the disputed period. The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's view that, although the underlying duty liability under the compounded levy scheme could survive, ancillary interest and penalty did not continue unless expressly preserved by law. On that basis, the interest and penalty demand was deleted, while the remaining duty-related consequences were left undisturbed in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350812