https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126338 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was construed as prescribing only a maximum penalty, not a mandatory minimum of Rs. 10,000, for a person concerned with excisable goods liable to confiscation. The phrase "a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or rupees ten thousand, whichever is greater" was treated as a ceiling on penalty, and the same interpretation was applied to the parallel wording in Rule 25(1). As the provision did not impose a floor, the request for enhancement of penalty was rejected and the existing penalty of Rs. 2,500 was sustained, consistent with the Larger Bench view in Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:39:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126338 Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was construed as prescribing only a maximum penalty, not a mandatory minimum of Rs. 10,000, for a person concerned with excisable goods liable to confiscation. The phrase "a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or rupees ten thousand, whichever is greater" was treated as a ceiling on penalty, and the same interpretation was applied to the parallel wording in Rule 25(1). As the provision did not impose a floor, the request for enhancement of penalty was rejected and the existing penalty of Rs. 2,500 was sustained, consistent with the Larger Bench view in Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126338