https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259259 Penalty under the third proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in the context of short payment disclosed in RT-12 returns. As the short payment was reflected in the returns, deliberate suppression with mala fide intent was not established. The provision authorising penalty equal to the duty liability on delay or short payment had already been held unconstitutional by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, so the Tribunal's reduction of penalty was found to be legally supportable. The reduced penalty was therefore sustained and the challenge to that order failed. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259259 Penalty under the third proviso to Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in the context of short payment disclosed in RT-12 returns. As the short payment was reflected in the returns, deliberate suppression with mala fide intent was not established. The provision authorising penalty equal to the duty liability on delay or short payment had already been held unconstitutional by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, so the Tribunal's reduction of penalty was found to be legally supportable. The reduced penalty was therefore sustained and the challenge to that order failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259259