https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218057 Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as prescribing a compulsory minimum penalty, but that punitive consequence had to comply with constitutional limits. The Tribunal applied the proportionality test to subordinate legislation and followed binding precedent holding that a mandatory penalty without mens rea was arbitrary and ultra vires to that extent. In the absence of any stay or reversal of that precedent, the declaration of law remained binding. On that basis, the mandatory penalty could not be enforced against the assessee as urged by the Revenue, and the Revenue challenge failed. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218057 Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as prescribing a compulsory minimum penalty, but that punitive consequence had to comply with constitutional limits. The Tribunal applied the proportionality test to subordinate legislation and followed binding precedent holding that a mandatory penalty without mens rea was arbitrary and ultra vires to that extent. In the absence of any stay or reversal of that precedent, the declaration of law remained binding. On that basis, the mandatory penalty could not be enforced against the assessee as urged by the Revenue, and the Revenue challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218057