Double jeopardy not attracted where delayed duty payment triggers separate interest and penalty under a fiscal rule, with reduced penalty upheld.

A fiscal rule separately imposing interest and penalty for delayed duty payment was treated as creating distinct civil liabilities, so the levy of both did not attract the constitutional bar against double jeopardy. The penalty was also left undisturbed because the appellate authority had already exercised leniency by reducing it from the maximum amount to Rs. 50,000, and no basis was shown to interfere with that discretion. The challenge to the reduced penalty was therefore rejected, and the appellate order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reduced penalty imposed for delayed payment of duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 called for interference, and whether the levy of both interest and penalty attracted the bar of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The proviso to Rule 96ZP(3) created a separate statutory liability to pay interest on the outstanding duty and, additionally, a penalty for default in payment by the prescribed date. The two liabilities operated on different footings. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy applies only where there is a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence, whereas the present levy involved civil consequences under the rule. The appellate authority had already taken a lenient view by reducing the penalty from the maximum amount to Rs. 50,000, and the record disclosed no justification to disturb that exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The plea based on double jeopardy was rejected and the reduced penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the appellate order reducing the penalty was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal provision separately provides for interest and penalty on delayed duty payment, both can be enforced together, and the constitutional bar of double jeopardy is not attracted.

---