https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202798 Rule 96-ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as mandatory, not discretionary, for penalty purposes. The Court read that provision as pari materia with Rules 96-ZQ and 96-ZO and relied on its earlier three-judge construction of those rules, which held that the statutory scheme left no scope to reduce the penalty on equitable or factual grounds. On that reasoning, the view that authorities could vary the quantum of penalty was rejected, and the reduced-penalty approach was held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202798 Rule 96-ZP(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as mandatory, not discretionary, for penalty purposes. The Court read that provision as pari materia with Rules 96-ZQ and 96-ZO and relied on its earlier three-judge construction of those rules, which held that the statutory scheme left no scope to reduce the penalty on equitable or factual grounds. On that reasoning, the view that authorities could vary the quantum of penalty was rejected, and the reduced-penalty approach was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202798