https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170697 Rule 96ZO(3) prescribed a penalty equal to the outstanding duty or the specified minimum, whichever was greater, and was treated as mandatory, leaving no discretion to reduce it on equitable grounds. Statutory appellate jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act cannot validate a demand or penalty founded on a rule that is void or ultra vires; once the governing rule is non-existent, the levy cannot be sustained under the Act. The stated outcome left the Tribunal's orders undisturbed and rejected the appeals. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:23:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170697 Rule 96ZO(3) prescribed a penalty equal to the outstanding duty or the specified minimum, whichever was greater, and was treated as mandatory, leaving no discretion to reduce it on equitable grounds. Statutory appellate jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act cannot validate a demand or penalty founded on a rule that is void or ultra vires; once the governing rule is non-existent, the levy cannot be sustained under the Act. The stated outcome left the Tribunal's orders undisturbed and rejected the appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170697