https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48170 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme was treated as mandatory on default: interest accrued at the specified rate from the date of default until payment, and penalty was payable at the duty amount or the prescribed minimum, whichever was greater. The governing rule left no discretion to impose a lesser interest or penalty, so the authority could not reduce or waive those consequences in the absence of statutory power. The plea for abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) was not accepted because the record did not show compliance with the prescribed requirements. The challenge to restoration of the original demand therefore failed. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48170 Rule 96ZO(3) under the compounded levy scheme was treated as mandatory on default: interest accrued at the specified rate from the date of default until payment, and penalty was payable at the duty amount or the prescribed minimum, whichever was greater. The governing rule left no discretion to impose a lesser interest or penalty, so the authority could not reduce or waive those consequences in the absence of statutory power. The plea for abatement under Rule 96ZO(2) was not accepted because the record did not show compliance with the prescribed requirements. The challenge to restoration of the original demand therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48170