https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355499 The Madras HC upheld the Tribunal's remand of liability matters because both sides had agreed to fresh determination and the assessee was to be given a fair hearing, so no interference was warranted. It also held that penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not survive once the Supreme Court had declared that provision ultra vires. On both issues, the challenge failed and the revenue's appeal was rejected. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355499 The Madras HC upheld the Tribunal's remand of liability matters because both sides had agreed to fresh determination and the assessee was to be given a fair hearing, so no interference was warranted. It also held that penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not survive once the Supreme Court had declared that provision ultra vires. On both issues, the challenge failed and the revenue's appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355499