As per case facts, RHYTHM COUNTY undertook a construction project, violating environmental norms by continuing construction without Environmental Clearance and mandatory consents, even after a stop-work order. The NGT imposed ... a significant environmental compensation. The appellant challenged this levy, arguing the CPCB formula for compensation was misapplied to residential projects and the amount was excessive. The question arose whether the NGT could quantify and enhance environmental compensation based on project cost or turnover in the absence of a specific legislative framework, and if it was competent to use such metrics under the NGT Act. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the NGT possesses wide powers to mould relief, guided by principles like 'polluter pays'. It found that project cost or turnover are permissible yardsticks for compensation, especially given the scale of operations and the need for deterrence and restitution. The court concluded the NGT's determination, based on expert reports and independent assessment, was rational, proportionate, and consistent with environmental jurisprudence, thus dismissing the appeal.