https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246944 Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was interpreted as leaving no discretion to reduce a penalty below the amount of duty short paid or not paid. The default in duty payment was undisputed, and the challenge was confined to whether the adjudicating authority could impose a lesser penalty on equitable grounds. Applying binding precedent, the Court held that once the statutory condition is attracted, the penalty prescribed by the rule is mandatory and cannot be scaled down. The enhanced penalty was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:40:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246944 Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was interpreted as leaving no discretion to reduce a penalty below the amount of duty short paid or not paid. The default in duty payment was undisputed, and the challenge was confined to whether the adjudicating authority could impose a lesser penalty on equitable grounds. Applying binding precedent, the Court held that once the statutory condition is attracted, the penalty prescribed by the rule is mandatory and cannot be scaled down. The enhanced penalty was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246944