Mandatory penalty provisions cannot be reduced, while discretionary penalty quantum under excise rules may stand undisturbed.

A mandatory penalty linked to duty or credit evaded under Rule 57-I and Section 11AC could not be reduced by the Tribunal once the statutory conditions were met, because the plain language left no discretion to dilute the prescribed consequence; the reduction was therefore set aside to that extent. By contrast, penalty under Rule 173Q was treated as discretionary as to quantum, so the reduced amount fixed under that provision was left undisturbed. The decision draws a clear distinction between mandatory penalty provisions, which must be applied as written, and discretionary penalty provisions, where appellate interference is limited absent legal error.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the penalty imposed under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the amount equal to the duty evaded to a lesser sum; (ii) Whether the reduction of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the penalty imposed under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the amount equal to the duty evaded to a lesser sum.

Analysis: The liability under Rule 57-I was treated as a mandatory penalty linked to the amount of credit or duty evaded, and the statutory language was held to leave no discretion to reduce that penalty once the conditions for its application were satisfied. The Court applied the principle that where the provision is plain and unambiguous, its terms must govern the result and the authority cannot dilute the prescribed consequence.

Conclusion: The reduction of the penalty under Rule 57-I was not justified and was set aside to that extent, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the reduction of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 called for interference.

Analysis: Rule 173Q was treated as a provision conferring discretion on the authority as to the quantum of penalty. Since the rule itself permits consideration of the extent of penalty within the prescribed limits, the reduced amount fixed under that provision was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The reduction of penalty under Rule 173Q was not interfered with, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of restoring the mandatory penalty component under Rule 57-I, while the discretionary penalty under Rule 173Q remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute or rule prescribes a mandatory penalty quantified by reference to the duty or credit evaded, the authority has no discretion to reduce it, but where the provision confers discretion on the quantum of penalty, the appellate court will not interfere absent legal error.

---