https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119186 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be discretionary and capable of reduction below the maximum prescribed amount where the facts justified it. The assessee, operating under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had delayed duty payment after receiving abatement orders under Rule 96ZO(2). CESTAT found that the assessee had awaited the outcome of the abatement claims and that there was no material showing intent to evade duty, although there was unexplained delay after the second abatement order. A reduced penalty was therefore considered sufficient. en-us Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:57:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119186 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be discretionary and capable of reduction below the maximum prescribed amount where the facts justified it. The assessee, operating under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, had delayed duty payment after receiving abatement orders under Rule 96ZO(2). CESTAT found that the assessee had awaited the outcome of the abatement claims and that there was no material showing intent to evade duty, although there was unexplained delay after the second abatement order. A reduced penalty was therefore considered sufficient. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119186