https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203689 Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules was upheld as a valid fiscal prescription because it was made under the enabling power in Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the parent statute did not require discretion to be vested in the assessing officer. The Court held that a mandatory penalty provision is not unconstitutional merely because it removes discretion, since fiscal rules may impose automatic consequences where authorised by the Act. The substantive vires challenge therefore failed, while limited instalment relief for payment of the dues was granted. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 May 2011 14:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203689 Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules was upheld as a valid fiscal prescription because it was made under the enabling power in Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the parent statute did not require discretion to be vested in the assessing officer. The Court held that a mandatory penalty provision is not unconstitutional merely because it removes discretion, since fiscal rules may impose automatic consequences where authorised by the Act. The substantive vires challenge therefore failed, while limited instalment relief for payment of the dues was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203689