https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119437 Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as conferring in-built discretion on the quasi-judicial authority, so penalty equal to duty was not mandatory at the maximum level. The Tribunal held that the quantum of penalty must be commensurate with the offence established and may be fixed below the prescribed ceiling having regard to the facts and circumstances. Applying that principle, it found the originally imposed penalty unduly harsh on the default proved and reduced it to Rs. 10 lakhs. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:11:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119437 Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as conferring in-built discretion on the quasi-judicial authority, so penalty equal to duty was not mandatory at the maximum level. The Tribunal held that the quantum of penalty must be commensurate with the offence established and may be fixed below the prescribed ceiling having regard to the facts and circumstances. Applying that principle, it found the originally imposed penalty unduly harsh on the default proved and reduced it to Rs. 10 lakhs. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119437