https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242997 A mandatory penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be reduced on equitable grounds, because the provision left no discretion once its conditions were met. The Tribunal's reduction of penalty was therefore not sustainable in law. Later Supreme Court rulings clarifying the mandatory nature of the penalty were treated as controlling, and the earlier dismissal of a connected matter did not bar reconsideration. The matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing legal position. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:07:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242997 A mandatory penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be reduced on equitable grounds, because the provision left no discretion once its conditions were met. The Tribunal's reduction of penalty was therefore not sustainable in law. Later Supreme Court rulings clarifying the mandatory nature of the penalty were treated as controlling, and the earlier dismissal of a connected matter did not bar reconsideration. The matter was remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing legal position. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242997