https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258364 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as non-mandatory where it operated as an inflexible minimum levy without discretion to consider the circumstances of delay. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court authorities relied on by the Revenue as confined to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and accepted the view that the rigidity of Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ, insofar as they excluded discretion and imposed equal penalty even for bona fide delay, was inconsistent with Article 14 and the principle of proportionality. The impugned rules were accordingly treated as ultra vires for the purpose of sustaining the departmental demand. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258364 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as non-mandatory where it operated as an inflexible minimum levy without discretion to consider the circumstances of delay. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court authorities relied on by the Revenue as confined to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and accepted the view that the rigidity of Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ, insofar as they excluded discretion and imposed equal penalty even for bona fide delay, was inconsistent with Article 14 and the principle of proportionality. The impugned rules were accordingly treated as ultra vires for the purpose of sustaining the departmental demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258364