https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269432 Punjab & Haryana HC noted that the mandatory penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for delayed duty payment was unsustainable to the extent it required a penalty equal to the duty without discretion or regard to the delay's circumstances. The commentary relied on earlier authority that such a rigid compounded levy penalty was excessive, arbitrary, and beyond the permissible scope of the parent Act, and on later Supreme Court approval of the same principle. The revenue's challenge to reduction of penalty accordingly failed because no substantial question of law arose. en-us Sat, 28 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2015 22:26:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269432 Punjab & Haryana HC noted that the mandatory penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for delayed duty payment was unsustainable to the extent it required a penalty equal to the duty without discretion or regard to the delay's circumstances. The commentary relied on earlier authority that such a rigid compounded levy penalty was excessive, arbitrary, and beyond the permissible scope of the parent Act, and on later Supreme Court approval of the same principle. The revenue's challenge to reduction of penalty accordingly failed because no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 28 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269432