https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45993 Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q were read as prescribing a maximum penalty, not a compulsory fixed penalty. On that construction, the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal retain discretion to impose a lesser penalty where the statutory language permits and the facts justify it. The Tribunal's reduction of penalty was therefore treated as a proper exercise of discretion, and the Revenue's challenge failed. The governing principle is that a penal provision framed in ceiling terms does not oust discretion to impose a lower penalty on the circumstances of the case. en-us Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:21:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45993 Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q were read as prescribing a maximum penalty, not a compulsory fixed penalty. On that construction, the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal retain discretion to impose a lesser penalty where the statutory language permits and the facts justify it. The Tribunal's reduction of penalty was therefore treated as a proper exercise of discretion, and the Revenue's challenge failed. The governing principle is that a penal provision framed in ceiling terms does not oust discretion to impose a lower penalty on the circumstances of the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45993