https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166942 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mandatory once default in timely payment triggered the third proviso. The Gujarat High Court noted that the compounded levy scheme and the governing Supreme Court ruling left no discretion to waive or reduce the statutory penalty on grounds of hardship or low revenue loss. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to cut the penalty below the prescribed minimum, and the Tribunal's reduction to Rs. 5,000 was contrary to law. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166942 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was mandatory once default in timely payment triggered the third proviso. The Gujarat High Court noted that the compounded levy scheme and the governing Supreme Court ruling left no discretion to waive or reduce the statutory penalty on grounds of hardship or low revenue loss. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to cut the penalty below the prescribed minimum, and the Tribunal's reduction to Rs. 5,000 was contrary to law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166942