https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92441 Rule 173Q and section 11AC were construed as fixing only the maximum penalty, not mandating its imposition in every case. The Commissioner (Appeals) could therefore reduce the penalty where the facts justified a lesser quantum, including adjustment of duty and Modvat credit through debit entries and the absence of evidence of wilful removal or misuse. The discretion exercised was treated as judicial, not arbitrary. The commentary also relies on the principle that a penalty provision framed as liability up to a specified amount authorises a ceiling, leaving room for proportionate reduction on the facts. en-us Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:24:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92441 Rule 173Q and section 11AC were construed as fixing only the maximum penalty, not mandating its imposition in every case. The Commissioner (Appeals) could therefore reduce the penalty where the facts justified a lesser quantum, including adjustment of duty and Modvat credit through debit entries and the absence of evidence of wilful removal or misuse. The discretion exercised was treated as judicial, not arbitrary. The commentary also relies on the principle that a penalty provision framed as liability up to a specified amount authorises a ceiling, leaving room for proportionate reduction on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92441