https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47109 Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was construed as a discretionary penalty provision for delayed duty payment by an independent processor, not as an automatic levy in every default case. The Court distinguished compensatory interest under sub-rule (5)(i) from deterrent penalty under sub-rule (5)(ii), holding that both consequences operate in different fields. The absence of express guidelines did not make the rule unconstitutional because it could be read to avoid arbitrariness. On that construction, the penalty provisions were not struck down as ultra vires, and the penalty orders required reconsideration by the assessing authority. en-us Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:38:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47109 Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was construed as a discretionary penalty provision for delayed duty payment by an independent processor, not as an automatic levy in every default case. The Court distinguished compensatory interest under sub-rule (5)(i) from deterrent penalty under sub-rule (5)(ii), holding that both consequences operate in different fields. The absence of express guidelines did not make the rule unconstitutional because it could be read to avoid arbitrariness. On that construction, the penalty provisions were not struck down as ultra vires, and the penalty orders required reconsideration by the assessing authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47109