https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48236 Penalty equal to duty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not treated as an invariable mandate where the facts did not disclose mens rea and the duty with interest had already been deposited. On that basis, the Tribunal could sustain a reduced penalty instead of the full amount equal to duty. The Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to do so and found no legal error in the reduction of penalty, answering the reference against the Revenue. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:16:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48236 Penalty equal to duty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not treated as an invariable mandate where the facts did not disclose mens rea and the duty with interest had already been deposited. On that basis, the Tribunal could sustain a reduced penalty instead of the full amount equal to duty. The Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to do so and found no legal error in the reduction of penalty, answering the reference against the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48236