https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354958 Under the compounded levy scheme, duty liability was to be worked out on a pro-rata basis where furnace capacity changed or the furnaces remained non-operational, following the earlier interpretation of Rule 96ZO(3) in the assessee's own case. That approach was applied to the later period because the factual and legal position was unchanged, so the assessee's claim for pro-rata abatement was accepted. Interest and penalty demands could not survive because the provisions governing those levies had already been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, and the ancillary levies were therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Feb 2018 07:46:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354958 Under the compounded levy scheme, duty liability was to be worked out on a pro-rata basis where furnace capacity changed or the furnaces remained non-operational, following the earlier interpretation of Rule 96ZO(3) in the assessee's own case. That approach was applied to the later period because the factual and legal position was unchanged, so the assessee's claim for pro-rata abatement was accepted. Interest and penalty demands could not survive because the provisions governing those levies had already been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, and the ancillary levies were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354958