https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373545 Interest under Rule 96ZO was held unenforceable because Section 3A of the Central Excise Act contained no substantive charging provision authorising interest; delegated rules could not create that liability in a compound levy scheme. The assessee failed on the challenge to annual production capacity because that determination had not been specifically assailed before the tribunal, and the plea that power cuts were ignored could not justify interference. Abatement under Section 3A(3) and Rule 96ZO(2) was denied because the prescribed procedure for continuous closure, including mandatory intimations and declarations, was not strictly followed. The excise demand was sustained, while the interest levy was quashed. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 17:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373545 Interest under Rule 96ZO was held unenforceable because Section 3A of the Central Excise Act contained no substantive charging provision authorising interest; delegated rules could not create that liability in a compound levy scheme. The assessee failed on the challenge to annual production capacity because that determination had not been specifically assailed before the tribunal, and the plea that power cuts were ignored could not justify interference. Abatement under Section 3A(3) and Rule 96ZO(2) was denied because the prescribed procedure for continuous closure, including mandatory intimations and declarations, was not strictly followed. The excise demand was sustained, while the interest levy was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373545