Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1123 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty, interest and penalty - appellant did not pay the duty in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - whether the demand is sustainable when Rules were held ultra virus? - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mittal Alloys Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2013 (12) TMI 1241 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that the omission of Rule 96ZO(3) would not affect any obligation or liability already accrued or incurred - only interest and penalty cannot be demanded however as regard the demand of duty it is legally recoverable - appeal partly allowed in favor of appellant.
|