Excise penalty requires proof of deliberate conduct; absent mens rea or fraud, discretion may justify deletion.

Penalty under excise law is not automatic and depends on a factual foundation of deliberate, contumacious conduct. Where the Tribunal found no evidence of mens rea, fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or collusion, and the Revenue did not challenge those adverse factual findings, the breach could be treated as technical or venial. In that situation, penalty proceedings being quasi-criminal, the authority must exercise discretion judicially and may decline to impose penalty merely because it is legally permissible. The proposed legal question on mandatory penalty therefore did not arise on the stated facts, and the deletion of penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could assail deletion of penalty where the Tribunal found no evidence of mens rea, fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or collusion, and whether penalty under the excise provisions was mandatory in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a penalty imposed on an individual under the excise regime. The Tribunal had recorded a factual finding that the investigation did not establish any fraudulent intent or conscious involvement on the part of the respondent. The Court treated the question of attempted evasion as one of fact and held that the Revenue had not challenged the adverse factual findings. Applying the settled principle that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal and that penalty is not to be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so, the Court held that the authority must exercise discretion judicially and may decline penalty where the breach is technical, venial, or unsupported by contumacious conduct. The proposed question of law was therefore held not to arise on the respondent's facts.

Conclusion: The deletion of penalty in favour of the assessee was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under the excise law is not automatic; it requires a factual foundation of deliberate or contumacious conduct, and where no mens rea or fraud is established, the authority may decline to impose penalty in the exercise of judicial discretion.

---