https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114551 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a ceiling rather than an inflexible mandatory levy. The adjudicating authority was held to retain discretion to impose a lesser penalty having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the reduction made in appeal was upheld. The conflicting views of High Courts did not displace the binding approach of the Supreme Court relied upon on the point, so full penalty was not required in every case. en-us Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 May 2012 16:25:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114551 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a ceiling rather than an inflexible mandatory levy. The adjudicating authority was held to retain discretion to impose a lesser penalty having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the reduction made in appeal was upheld. The conflicting views of High Courts did not displace the binding approach of the Supreme Court relied upon on the point, so full penalty was not required in every case. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114551