https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220142 Under Rule 96ZO(3), the adjudicating authority was not bound to levy penalty equal to the delayed duty payment where the facts justified a lesser sanction. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court authority relied on by the Revenue had left the rule's vires open, while the Punjab & Haryana High Court had treated the mandatory minimum penalty as arbitrary and excessive to that extent. On that basis, it held that discretion remained available to reduce the penalty, particularly where the duty had been paid before the show cause notice and the circumstances did not warrant the full amount. The penalty was therefore reduced to Rs. 1,00,000. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:05:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220142 Under Rule 96ZO(3), the adjudicating authority was not bound to levy penalty equal to the delayed duty payment where the facts justified a lesser sanction. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court authority relied on by the Revenue had left the rule's vires open, while the Punjab & Haryana High Court had treated the mandatory minimum penalty as arbitrary and excessive to that extent. On that basis, it held that discretion remained available to reduce the penalty, particularly where the duty had been paid before the show cause notice and the circumstances did not warrant the full amount. The penalty was therefore reduced to Rs. 1,00,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220142