https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78927 Administrative circulars cannot override statutory jurisdiction conferred on a Central Excise Officer to issue show cause notices; therefore, notices issued by the Superintendent remained valid despite a circular referring such power to the Assistant Commissioner. The later Supreme Court exposition in Pahwa Chemicals was treated as controlling, and the contrary departmental view was not accepted to defeat the statutory power. On penalty, Rule 96ZP was treated as mandatory under the controlling precedents, leaving no discretion to reduce the prescribed penalty on equitable grounds such as absence of mens rea. The Tribunal's contrary approach was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the remaining issues. en-us Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:22:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78927 Administrative circulars cannot override statutory jurisdiction conferred on a Central Excise Officer to issue show cause notices; therefore, notices issued by the Superintendent remained valid despite a circular referring such power to the Assistant Commissioner. The later Supreme Court exposition in Pahwa Chemicals was treated as controlling, and the contrary departmental view was not accepted to defeat the statutory power. On penalty, Rule 96ZP was treated as mandatory under the controlling precedents, leaving no discretion to reduce the prescribed penalty on equitable grounds such as absence of mens rea. The Tribunal's contrary approach was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the remaining issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78927