https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31166 Penalty under excise law is not automatic and depends on a factual foundation of deliberate, contumacious conduct. Where the Tribunal found no evidence of mens rea, fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or collusion, and the Revenue did not challenge those adverse factual findings, the breach could be treated as technical or venial. In that situation, penalty proceedings being quasi-criminal, the authority must exercise discretion judicially and may decline to impose penalty merely because it is legally permissible. The proposed legal question on mandatory penalty therefore did not arise on the stated facts, and the deletion of penalty was upheld. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31166 Penalty under excise law is not automatic and depends on a factual foundation of deliberate, contumacious conduct. Where the Tribunal found no evidence of mens rea, fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or collusion, and the Revenue did not challenge those adverse factual findings, the breach could be treated as technical or venial. In that situation, penalty proceedings being quasi-criminal, the authority must exercise discretion judicially and may decline to impose penalty merely because it is legally permissible. The proposed legal question on mandatory penalty therefore did not arise on the stated facts, and the deletion of penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31166