https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54548 Interest under Section 11AB on wrongly taken and later reversed credit on capital goods was held unsustainable because the notice did not allege intent to evade duty and the statutory preconditions for levy were not met. The discussion also clarified that Rule 173Q(1)(a) uses the phrase "penalty not exceeding", which fixes only an upper limit and does not impose a mandatory minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000 in every case. On that basis, a reduced penalty of Rs. 1,000 was within discretion and required no interference. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:04:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54548 Interest under Section 11AB on wrongly taken and later reversed credit on capital goods was held unsustainable because the notice did not allege intent to evade duty and the statutory preconditions for levy were not met. The discussion also clarified that Rule 173Q(1)(a) uses the phrase "penalty not exceeding", which fixes only an upper limit and does not impose a mandatory minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000 in every case. On that basis, a reduced penalty of Rs. 1,000 was within discretion and required no interference. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54548