https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49056 Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, prescribes only a maximum penalty because the phrase "not exceeding" limits the penalty to a statutory ceiling. The corresponding language in Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated the same way, and the words "whichever is greater" do not remove the adjudicating authority's discretion to impose a lesser penalty on the facts. Penalty under these provisions remains a discretionary, quasi-criminal consequence that must reflect the circumstances of the case. The referred question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49056 Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, prescribes only a maximum penalty because the phrase "not exceeding" limits the penalty to a statutory ceiling. The corresponding language in Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated the same way, and the words "whichever is greater" do not remove the adjudicating authority's discretion to impose a lesser penalty on the facts. Penalty under these provisions remains a discretionary, quasi-criminal consequence that must reflect the circumstances of the case. The referred question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49056