https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151884 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was treated as mandatory and co-extensive with the duty liability, following the settled position that the statutory penalty cannot be reduced below the duty amount. On that basis, the Court held that remand would serve no useful purpose once the governing law was already clear. The orders reducing the penalty were set aside and the original penalty order restored, leaving the penalty aligned with the duty demand. en-us Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151884 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was treated as mandatory and co-extensive with the duty liability, following the settled position that the statutory penalty cannot be reduced below the duty amount. On that basis, the Court held that remand would serve no useful purpose once the governing law was already clear. The orders reducing the penalty were set aside and the original penalty order restored, leaving the penalty aligned with the duty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151884