https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364848 Rule 96ZP penalty could not be reduced once the statutory default was established under the compounding scheme. The assessee had elected the scheme but failed to make the required monthly payments, and the rule did not give the appellate authority discretion to scale down the penalty. The HC upheld the Tribunal's view that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked power to interfere with the quantum of penalty in such circumstances, and the assessee's challenge failed. The full penalty was therefore sustained in favour of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:00:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364848 Rule 96ZP penalty could not be reduced once the statutory default was established under the compounding scheme. The assessee had elected the scheme but failed to make the required monthly payments, and the rule did not give the appellate authority discretion to scale down the penalty. The HC upheld the Tribunal's view that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked power to interfere with the quantum of penalty in such circumstances, and the assessee's challenge failed. The full penalty was therefore sustained in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364848