https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333936 Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined for validity in imposing a mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount. The provision was found to exceed the rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because it prescribed an inflexible penalty regardless of circumstances. It was also treated as arbitrary, excessive, and contrary to Article 14, while imposing an unreasonable restriction on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) not protected by Article 19(6). The provision was held invalid to the extent it mandated penalty equal to duty, following the Supreme Court's view in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jan 2017 16:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333936 Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined for validity in imposing a mandatory penalty equal to the duty amount. The provision was found to exceed the rule-making power under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because it prescribed an inflexible penalty regardless of circumstances. It was also treated as arbitrary, excessive, and contrary to Article 14, while imposing an unreasonable restriction on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) not protected by Article 19(6). The provision was held invalid to the extent it mandated penalty equal to duty, following the Supreme Court's view in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333936