https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33400 The earlier view that Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) could be read down was displaced by the later binding decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, which treated the penalty provision as mandatory. In light of that change, the challenge to the vires of the rule could not be finally determined in the appeals and required fresh consideration at the first instance. The Supreme Court therefore remitted the matters to the respective High Courts, permitting amendment of pleadings and directing expeditious completion of the proceedings. en-us Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33400 The earlier view that Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) could be read down was displaced by the later binding decision in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, which treated the penalty provision as mandatory. In light of that change, the challenge to the vires of the rule could not be finally determined in the appeals and required fresh consideration at the first instance. The Supreme Court therefore remitted the matters to the respective High Courts, permitting amendment of pleadings and directing expeditious completion of the proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33400