https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220337 Penalty under the third proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as capable of reduction where the record did not show any intention to evade duty. The analysis notes that the Supreme Court had not finally settled the vires of Rule 96ZO(3) in the decisions relied on, while a later High Court view considered a mandatory minimum penalty without mens rea and without discretion to be arbitrary and an excessive restriction. On the facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in reducing the penalty after considering the overall circumstances, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:42:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220337 Penalty under the third proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as capable of reduction where the record did not show any intention to evade duty. The analysis notes that the Supreme Court had not finally settled the vires of Rule 96ZO(3) in the decisions relied on, while a later High Court view considered a mandatory minimum penalty without mens rea and without discretion to be arbitrary and an excessive restriction. On the facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in reducing the penalty after considering the overall circumstances, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220337