https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153984 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme treated delayed payment of monthly duty as attracting mandatory liability to pay the outstanding duty with interest and a penalty equal to the duty or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. The text states that no discretion exists under the rule to reduce or waive the statutory penalty, and it relies on the Supreme Court's view under Rules 96ZO and 96ZQ that such penalty provisions are mandatory. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the penalty, and the adjudicating authority's penalty was restored. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:10:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153984 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme treated delayed payment of monthly duty as attracting mandatory liability to pay the outstanding duty with interest and a penalty equal to the duty or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. The text states that no discretion exists under the rule to reduce or waive the statutory penalty, and it relies on the Supreme Court's view under Rules 96ZO and 96ZQ that such penalty provisions are mandatory. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the penalty, and the adjudicating authority's penalty was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153984