2011 (4) TMI 530

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o far the quantification of penalty is concerned. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai (for short, 'the Commissioner') as also the Tribunal held that in the present case Rule 96-ZQ is applicable but the only difference is that while the Commissioner imposed penalty of an amount equivalent to duty, which is 100 per cent, the Tribunal although held that it was a case of Rule 96-ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and was a case of penalty and exercised its discretion in scaling down the quantum of penalty to Rs. 1 lac only. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal is under challenge in these appeals on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our att....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid provision, also indicates that such a provision is mandatory. The same view is also taken in the decision of this Court in Union of India and Others v. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Others - (2008) 13 SCC 369 = 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). After referring to the provisions of Rule 96-ZQ in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, this Court considered the submissions of the counsel for the assessee in the following manner : "The stand of the learned counsel for the assessee is that the absence of specific reference to mens rea is a case of casus omissus. If the contention of learned counsel for the assessee is accepted that the use of the expression 'assessee shall be liable' proves the existence of discretion, it would lead to a very ....