https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447459 Interim protection was granted against excise recovery where the petitioner alleged that sample collection and penalty action were taken without compliance with Rule 776 of the U.P. Excise Manual and without the notice required under Section 74-A(1). The State admitted that Rule 776 had not been complied with in letter and spirit and that no notice had been issued before action. In view of these admitted procedural lapses, the court required further consideration of the challenge, stayed full recovery pending further proceedings, and permitted only partial retention of the recovered amount in fixed deposit after a 25% deduction. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:00:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447459 Interim protection was granted against excise recovery where the petitioner alleged that sample collection and penalty action were taken without compliance with Rule 776 of the U.P. Excise Manual and without the notice required under Section 74-A(1). The State admitted that Rule 776 had not been complied with in letter and spirit and that no notice had been issued before action. In view of these admitted procedural lapses, the court required further consideration of the challenge, stayed full recovery pending further proceedings, and permitted only partial retention of the recovered amount in fixed deposit after a 25% deduction. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447459