2012 (11) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nam, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Learned Counsel Shri Santhanam submits that penal proceeding under Rule 96ZP is to be initiated within limitation. So also in absence of mala fide, penalty is not imposable. In support of his contention he relies on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Bansal Alloys & Metals (P) Ltd. v. UOI - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 343....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CE, Chandigarh - 2011 (265) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) it is held by the Apex Court that time limit prescribed under one scheme could be unwarranted for another scheme of law and time limit under Section 11A ibid is not an exception and with such ratio appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Apex Court. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Bare reading of penal provisions unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble restriction which is also described as proportionality test. 5. On the aforesaid reasoning, Hon'ble Court came to conclusion that the penal provision of Rule to the extent of providing mandatory minimum penalty without any mens rea is excessive and unreasonable restriction on fundamental right and is arbitrary. "The reasoning of mens rea appearing in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court ....