IMPORTANT POINT
There is no scope for discretion in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules 96ZQ and 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the controversy involved in these appeals to a larger Bench doubting the correctness of the view expressed in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr.,1 (2007 (8) SCALE 304). The question which arises for determination in all these appeals is whether Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the ‘Act’) inserted by Finance Act, 1996 with the intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who evaded payment of tax should be read to contain mens rea as an essential ingredient and whether there is a scope for levying penalty below the prescribed minimum. Before the Division Bench, stand of the revenue was that said section should be read as penalty for statutory offence and the authority imposing penalty has no discretion in the matter of imposition of penalty and the adjudicating authority in such cases was duty bound to impose penalty equal to the duties so determined. The assessee on the other hand referred to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘IT Act’) taking the stand that Section 11AC of the Act is identically worded and in a given case it was open to the assessing officer not to impose any penalty. The Division Bench made reference to Rule 96ZQ and Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the ‘Rules’) and a decision of this Court in Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr.,2 (2006 (5) SCC 361) and was of the view that the basic scheme for imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of IT Act, Section 11AC of the Act and Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Rules is common. According to the Division Bench the correct position in law was laid down in Chairman, SEBI’s case (supra) and not in Dilip Shroff’s case (supra). Therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

3. It was noted that in some cases the assessee had challenged the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5) and the Gujarat High Court held that the said rule incorporated the requirement of mens rea. The Division Bench clarified that if the larger bench takes a view to say that the penalty leviable under the said clause is mandatory, it is still open to the assessee to challenge the vires of Rule 96ZQ(5).

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that a similar issue is involved in respect of Rule 96ZO.

5. Mr. Chandrashekharan, Additional Solicitor General submitted that in Rules 96ZQ and 96ZO there is no reference to any mens rea as in Section 11AC where mens rea is prescribed statutorily. This is clear from the extended period of limitation permissible under Section 11A of the Act. It is in essence submitted that the penalty is for statutory offence. It is pointed out that the proviso to Section 11A deals with the time for initiation of action. Section 11AC is only a mechanism for computation and the quantum of penalty. It is stated that the consequences of fraud etc. relate to the extended period of limitation and the onus is on the revenue to establish that the extended period of limitation is applicable. Once that Hurdle is crossed by the revenue, the assessee is exposed to penalty and the quantum of penalty is fixed. It is pointed out that even if in some statutes mens rea is specifically provided for, so is the limit or imposition of penalty, that is the maximum fixed or the quantum has to be between two limits fixed. In the cases at hand, there is no variable and, therefore, no discretion. It is pointed out that prior to insertion of Section 11AC, Rule 173Q was in vogue in which no mens rea was provided for. It only stated “which he knows or has reason to believe”. The said clause referred to wilful action. According to learned counsel what was inferentially provided in some respects in Rule 173Q, now stands explicitly provided in Section 11AC. Where the outer limit of penalty is fixed and the statute provides that it should not exceed a part