https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47856 Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was treated as mandating penalty imposition, while Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was read as giving discretion only on the quantum of penalty within prescribed limits. The Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was supported by recorded reasons and was viewed as a reasonable and possible exercise of discretion on the facts. As no perversity or capriciousness in that exercise was shown, the reduction was upheld and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:27:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47856 Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was treated as mandating penalty imposition, while Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was read as giving discretion only on the quantum of penalty within prescribed limits. The Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was supported by recorded reasons and was viewed as a reasonable and possible exercise of discretion on the facts. As no perversity or capriciousness in that exercise was shown, the reduction was upheld and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47856