https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2723 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was examined in light of conflicting views on whether the phrase "shall be liable to" requires a penalty equal to the duty short-paid in every case. The analysis notes that the assessee had paid the outstanding duty with interest before adjudication, and the appellate authority treated the prescribed amount as a maximum rather than an inflexible minimum. On those facts, a reduced penalty was considered justified and the revenue's challenge to that reduction failed. The operative principle stated is that, where the provision is framed in similar terms, the authority may impose a lesser penalty in an appropriate case based on the proven facts. en-us Thu, 31 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2723 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) was examined in light of conflicting views on whether the phrase "shall be liable to" requires a penalty equal to the duty short-paid in every case. The analysis notes that the assessee had paid the outstanding duty with interest before adjudication, and the appellate authority treated the prescribed amount as a maximum rather than an inflexible minimum. On those facts, a reduced penalty was considered justified and the revenue's challenge to that reduction failed. The operative principle stated is that, where the provision is framed in similar terms, the authority may impose a lesser penalty in an appropriate case based on the proven facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2723