2005 (8) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e only question canvassed is that the amount of penalty imposed in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) could not have been reduced to Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lacs only) by the Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr. R.V. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue. He relied upon the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short) read with Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal should be admitted and heard with that appeal. The question involved in that appeal is; whether the Tribunal was right in reducing the penalty, when Section 11AC is mandatory in character. The question raised in this appeal rest on the interpretation of Rule 25 and not Section 11AC, hence submission made in this behalf is without any merit. 5. The submissions made by Mr. Desai on other cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (S.C.) is also misplaced. In the very same Judgment (para 31), it has been held that no discretion is left with respect to the levy of penalty but with respect to amount or quantum of penalty is concerned, discretion is given to the authorities concerned. 7. In the case on hand, the penalty has been imposed, what is reduced is the quantum or amount of penalty which i....