https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47778 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be discretionary, not automatically recoverable at the maximum rate in every case. The quantum could be moderated having regard to the delay in payment, the amount involved and the surrounding circumstances, and the concurrent reduction of penalty to 50% was upheld as not perverse. The plea that absence of mens rea barred penalty was rejected because the compounded levy scheme under Section 3-A was designed to secure timely duty payment and deter default. No substantial question of law arose for interference. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:51:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47778 Penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be discretionary, not automatically recoverable at the maximum rate in every case. The quantum could be moderated having regard to the delay in payment, the amount involved and the surrounding circumstances, and the concurrent reduction of penalty to 50% was upheld as not perverse. The plea that absence of mens rea barred penalty was rejected because the compounded levy scheme under Section 3-A was designed to secure timely duty payment and deter default. No substantial question of law arose for interference. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47778