https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289639 Penalty proceedings under Rule 173Q could not survive where the underlying duty demand was already barred by limitation under Section 11A. The Tribunal applied the principle that consequential penalty in excise matters depends on a legally enforceable duty demand, and relied on H.M.M. Ltd. to hold that once recovery of duty became time-barred, the related penalty also became unsustainable. The classification dispute on merits was not ative for disposal, because limitation itself disposed of the penalty issue. The penalty was therefore treated as time-barred and unsustainable. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:41:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289639 Penalty proceedings under Rule 173Q could not survive where the underlying duty demand was already barred by limitation under Section 11A. The Tribunal applied the principle that consequential penalty in excise matters depends on a legally enforceable duty demand, and relied on H.M.M. Ltd. to hold that once recovery of duty became time-barred, the related penalty also became unsustainable. The classification dispute on merits was not ative for disposal, because limitation itself disposed of the penalty issue. The penalty was therefore treated as time-barred and unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289639