https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50147 Rule 96ZP(3) was treated as fixing only the maximum penalty, not mandating automatic imposition of penalty at the full duty amount. Applying the Supreme Court's principle that liability to penalty may be compulsory while the quantum remains discretionary, the Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority could reduce the amount on the facts. Financial hardship and subsequent payment of duty with interest were relevant factors in fixing a lower penalty. The result was that 100% penalty was not compulsory and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1.50 lakhs. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50147 Rule 96ZP(3) was treated as fixing only the maximum penalty, not mandating automatic imposition of penalty at the full duty amount. Applying the Supreme Court's principle that liability to penalty may be compulsory while the quantum remains discretionary, the Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority could reduce the amount on the facts. Financial hardship and subsequent payment of duty with interest were relevant factors in fixing a lower penalty. The result was that 100% penalty was not compulsory and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50147