https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212645 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mandatory for failure to make timely payment, and the appellate authority had no discretion to reduce it on the ground that mens rea was not established. The statutory scheme, read with the Supreme Court principle that such penalty provisions do not permit reduction, meant the absence of mens rea was irrelevant to the prescribed consequence. The reduction ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore set aside, and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was restored in favour of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212645 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mandatory for failure to make timely payment, and the appellate authority had no discretion to reduce it on the ground that mens rea was not established. The statutory scheme, read with the Supreme Court principle that such penalty provisions do not permit reduction, meant the absence of mens rea was irrelevant to the prescribed consequence. The reduction ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore set aside, and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority was restored in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212645