https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47890 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not an invariable mandatory minimum where mens rea or intention to evade duty is absent. The provision must be read with its scheme of compounded duty, interest and default consequences, and contrasted with Section 11AC, which is linked to fraud, suppression and similar culpable conduct. In the absence of such ingredients, the authority may vary the penalty having regard to delay, the amount involved, the reasons for default and other relevant circumstances. That discretion must be exercised judiciously and is open to interference only if perverse or arbitrary. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:32:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47890 Penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not an invariable mandatory minimum where mens rea or intention to evade duty is absent. The provision must be read with its scheme of compounded duty, interest and default consequences, and contrasted with Section 11AC, which is linked to fraud, suppression and similar culpable conduct. In the absence of such ingredients, the authority may vary the penalty having regard to delay, the amount involved, the reasons for default and other relevant circumstances. That discretion must be exercised judiciously and is open to interference only if perverse or arbitrary. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47890