https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48139 Reduction of penalty under Rule 96-Q(5) was sustained because the Commissioner (Appeals) had already reduced the penalties and that order was not challenged by the revenue. The challenge that the appellate authority lacked discretion to reduce the penalty was therefore rejected. The Tribunal relied on factual findings that the duty had been paid, interest had offset any pecuniary advantage from delayed payment, and the delay was only for a few days; on that basis, it treated the penalties as excessive. No substantial question of law arose from this fact-based interference. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:22:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48139 Reduction of penalty under Rule 96-Q(5) was sustained because the Commissioner (Appeals) had already reduced the penalties and that order was not challenged by the revenue. The challenge that the appellate authority lacked discretion to reduce the penalty was therefore rejected. The Tribunal relied on factual findings that the duty had been paid, interest had offset any pecuniary advantage from delayed payment, and the delay was only for a few days; on that basis, it treated the penalties as excessive. No substantial question of law arose from this fact-based interference. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48139