https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373544 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without a saving clause did not nullify proceedings already initiated under that provision; the challenge on that ground failed. The Court also applied the binding Supreme Court view that Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ could not validly impose a mandatory penalty equivalent to the duty amount, or beyond Rs. 5,000, because the parent statute did not authorise such exposure and the rules were excessive to that extent. Accordingly, enhancement of penalty to the duty amount was unsustainable, while the wider appeal was remanded for fresh decision on merits. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373544 Omission of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without a saving clause did not nullify proceedings already initiated under that provision; the challenge on that ground failed. The Court also applied the binding Supreme Court view that Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ could not validly impose a mandatory penalty equivalent to the duty amount, or beyond Rs. 5,000, because the parent statute did not authorise such exposure and the rules were excessive to that extent. Accordingly, enhancement of penalty to the duty amount was unsustainable, while the wider appeal was remanded for fresh decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373544