https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248294 Mandatory equal-amount penalty for delayed central excise payment under Rule 96ZO(3) was held impermissible where it operated without mens rea and without any discretion to impose a lesser penalty. The Court reiterated that the rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not support a penalty regime divorced from intent to evade duty, and that penalty must be reasonable and proportionate to the facts of each case. A fixed 100% penalty for every delay, regardless of its extent or circumstances, was therefore not enforceable, and the challenge to the rule succeeded. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248294 Mandatory equal-amount penalty for delayed central excise payment under Rule 96ZO(3) was held impermissible where it operated without mens rea and without any discretion to impose a lesser penalty. The Court reiterated that the rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not support a penalty regime divorced from intent to evade duty, and that penalty must be reasonable and proportionate to the facts of each case. A fixed 100% penalty for every delay, regardless of its extent or circumstances, was therefore not enforceable, and the challenge to the rule succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248294