https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96436 Discretionary reward guidelines required the competent authority to fix quantum on relevant considerations and give reasons for any reduction. A reduced reward order was therefore unsustainable where it did not show application of mind to the information supplied and the assistance rendered; petitioners 2 to 6 were held entitled to the full 20% reward on the seized goods' value. By contrast, the first petitioner, who only passed on information and did not directly assist in the seizure, was not treated as an eligible informer and his claim was rejected. en-us Wed, 04 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96436 Discretionary reward guidelines required the competent authority to fix quantum on relevant considerations and give reasons for any reduction. A reduced reward order was therefore unsustainable where it did not show application of mind to the information supplied and the assistance rendered; petitioners 2 to 6 were held entitled to the full 20% reward on the seized goods' value. By contrast, the first petitioner, who only passed on information and did not directly assist in the seizure, was not treated as an eligible informer and his claim was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96436