https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206757 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be imposed in a rigid mechanical manner without considering mens rea. Relying on prior High Court authority and noting that the Supreme Court had left the vires question open, the Court treated mens rea as an essential factor before levy of penalty under the rule. It therefore accepted the appellate authority's reduction of penalty and upheld the reduced amount as justified on the facts stated. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2013 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206757 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be imposed in a rigid mechanical manner without considering mens rea. Relying on prior High Court authority and noting that the Supreme Court had left the vires question open, the Court treated mens rea as an essential factor before levy of penalty under the rule. It therefore accepted the appellate authority's reduction of penalty and upheld the reduced amount as justified on the facts stated. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206757