https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759615 Omission of Section 3A and Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ without a saving clause meant pending compounded levy proceedings could not be continued or concluded thereafter. Section 38A did not preserve proceedings after omission, and Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 did not save liabilities or adjudication under the omitted charging and machinery provisions. Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), which imposed a mandatory penalty equal to the duty outstanding without discretion, was held ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 and beyond the rule-making power under Section 37. The impugned demands were therefore unsustainable in law. en-us Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Oct 2024 08:54:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759615 Omission of Section 3A and Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ without a saving clause meant pending compounded levy proceedings could not be continued or concluded thereafter. Section 38A did not preserve proceedings after omission, and Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001 did not save liabilities or adjudication under the omitted charging and machinery provisions. Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), which imposed a mandatory penalty equal to the duty outstanding without discretion, was held ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 and beyond the rule-making power under Section 37. The impugned demands were therefore unsustainable in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759615