https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44248 A discretionary debarment from a concessional excise duty scheme under Rule 92E(iii) was upheld because the period of disqualification need not be mathematically tied to the exact revenue loss. The Court recognised that the provision serves both a compensatory and deterrent function, especially to prevent repeated breaches, and therefore allowed room for administrative discretion. On the facts, the difference between the estimated and eventual revenue figures did not show arbitrariness or plain disproportionality. Interference under Article 136 was therefore not warranted where the sanction was shown to be neither arbitrary nor out of all proportion to the injury caused to the Revenue. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:42:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44248 A discretionary debarment from a concessional excise duty scheme under Rule 92E(iii) was upheld because the period of disqualification need not be mathematically tied to the exact revenue loss. The Court recognised that the provision serves both a compensatory and deterrent function, especially to prevent repeated breaches, and therefore allowed room for administrative discretion. On the facts, the difference between the estimated and eventual revenue figures did not show arbitrariness or plain disproportionality. Interference under Article 136 was therefore not warranted where the sanction was shown to be neither arbitrary nor out of all proportion to the injury caused to the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44248