https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791887 A demand of duty and equal penalty based on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not survive once that rule had been declared ultra vires, though interest for delayed payment remained unaffected. Penalty under Rule 27 was sustained because the ER-1 returns were filed after the due dates, and the general penalty provision applied to the admitted procedural default. Penalty under Rule 26 was also sustained against the authorised signatory, as the record showed conscious misdeclaration of duty-payment particulars and deliberate concealment of the non-payment. The stated principle is that an unenforceable statutory foundation cannot support a demand or consequential penalty, but separate penalties for proven compliance defaults or misstatement remain valid. en-us Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791887 A demand of duty and equal penalty based on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not survive once that rule had been declared ultra vires, though interest for delayed payment remained unaffected. Penalty under Rule 27 was sustained because the ER-1 returns were filed after the due dates, and the general penalty provision applied to the admitted procedural default. Penalty under Rule 26 was also sustained against the authorised signatory, as the record showed conscious misdeclaration of duty-payment particulars and deliberate concealment of the non-payment. The stated principle is that an unenforceable statutory foundation cannot support a demand or consequential penalty, but separate penalties for proven compliance defaults or misstatement remain valid. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791887