https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33929 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not a rigid, fixed levy equal to the full duty outstanding; the provision was treated as prescribing a maximum penalty, leaving discretion to impose a lesser amount on a case-specific assessment of the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal's reduction of penalty was therefore consistent with the scheme of the rule, supported by analogous statutory provisions recognising discretion in fixing penalty and fine. The departmental appeals were dismissed. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33929 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not a rigid, fixed levy equal to the full duty outstanding; the provision was treated as prescribing a maximum penalty, leaving discretion to impose a lesser amount on a case-specific assessment of the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal's reduction of penalty was therefore consistent with the scheme of the rule, supported by analogous statutory provisions recognising discretion in fixing penalty and fine. The departmental appeals were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33929