Settled interpretation of penalty wording under Section 11AC left no referable question of law on lesser penalty discretion.

A settled Supreme Court interpretation of similar penalty wording under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act meant the provision fixed only the maximum penalty and preserved discretion to impose a lesser penalty. Because that legal position had already been accepted by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law was treated as concluded and did not warrant a reference to the Court. The reference application was therefore liable to be rejected, with no referable question of law surviving on the penalty issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question sought to be referred concerning the penalty provision under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 required a reference to the Court.

Analysis: The authorities had proceeded on the basis of the Supreme Court's interpretation of a similar penalty phraseology, under which the provision fixed only the maximum penalty and did not take away discretion to impose a lesser penalty. In view of that settled interpretation and the concurrent findings of the departmental authorities and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law was already concluded.

Conclusion: The question did not require reference to the Court and the application was liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: No referable question of law survived on the penalty issue under Section 11AC, and the request for reference failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing legal principle is already settled by the Supreme Court on an identical penalty phraseology, a reference is unnecessary because the question stands concluded.

---