https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247373 A mandatory minimum penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where it operated without discretion and without examining whether the default involved intent to evade duty. The Court construed the rule-making power as permitting penalty only in cases of such intent, and found a fixed penalty equal to the duty, regardless of facts or circumstances, to be excessive, arbitrary and an unreasonable restriction. It reaffirmed that penalty cannot be mechanically fixed at 100% in every case; the Revenue's challenge failed and the reduced penalty in favour of the assessee was sustained. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2014 10:52:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247373 A mandatory minimum penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where it operated without discretion and without examining whether the default involved intent to evade duty. The Court construed the rule-making power as permitting penalty only in cases of such intent, and found a fixed penalty equal to the duty, regardless of facts or circumstances, to be excessive, arbitrary and an unreasonable restriction. It reaffirmed that penalty cannot be mechanically fixed at 100% in every case; the Revenue's challenge failed and the reduced penalty in favour of the assessee was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247373