https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30165 Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was construed as prescribing a maximum penalty, not a minimum one. The expression "not exceeding" was held to create a ceiling on the alternative penalty, leaving discretion to impose a lesser penalty in appropriate cases, subject to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and the facts and gravity of the breach. The analysis also applied the principle that where two interpretations are possible, the construction favourable to the assessee should prevail. Earlier contrary views were overruled. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 May 2010 21:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30165 Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was construed as prescribing a maximum penalty, not a minimum one. The expression "not exceeding" was held to create a ceiling on the alternative penalty, leaving discretion to impose a lesser penalty in appropriate cases, subject to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and the facts and gravity of the breach. The analysis also applied the principle that where two interpretations are possible, the construction favourable to the assessee should prevail. Earlier contrary views were overruled. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30165