https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356787 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable because the de novo adjudication did not comply with the earlier appellate remand directions and again imposed a composite penalty without addressing those observations. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held applicable only prospectively from 28.09.1996, so it could not be levied for any period before that date. The penalty component was therefore curtailed by setting aside the Rule 173Q levy and restricting the Section 11AC levy to the post-commencement period. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 07:26:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356787 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable because the de novo adjudication did not comply with the earlier appellate remand directions and again imposed a composite penalty without addressing those observations. Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held applicable only prospectively from 28.09.1996, so it could not be levied for any period before that date. The penalty component was therefore curtailed by setting aside the Rule 173Q levy and restricting the Section 11AC levy to the post-commencement period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356787