https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252464 Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined for imposing a mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount, without discretion and regardless of the extent or circumstances of delay. The provision was considered against the rule-making power under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the earlier binding view that a minimum mandatory penalty for even bona fide delay, without mens rea or discretion, is excessive and unreasonable. It was noted that penalty under the compounded levy scheme could not rigidly be fixed at 100% of duty in every case, and that the authority must assess the facts of delay. The mandatory penalty provision was treated as beyond the permissible scope of subordinate legislation, and the assessee's position was upheld. en-us Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:36:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252464 Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined for imposing a mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount, without discretion and regardless of the extent or circumstances of delay. The provision was considered against the rule-making power under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the earlier binding view that a minimum mandatory penalty for even bona fide delay, without mens rea or discretion, is excessive and unreasonable. It was noted that penalty under the compounded levy scheme could not rigidly be fixed at 100% of duty in every case, and that the authority must assess the facts of delay. The mandatory penalty provision was treated as beyond the permissible scope of subordinate legislation, and the assessee's position was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252464