https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392616 Interest demanded under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained once that rule had been struck down, because the demand rested only on the delegated rule and not on any substantive charging provision in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of parent statutory authority to levy interest, the rule could not independently create or support the demand. The impugned communication was therefore quashed. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392616 Interest demanded under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained once that rule had been struck down, because the demand rested only on the delegated rule and not on any substantive charging provision in Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of parent statutory authority to levy interest, the rule could not independently create or support the demand. The impugned communication was therefore quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392616