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

..... pees 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 Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 ('the Rules' for short) to contend that no discretion rests .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 count are also misplaced for more than one reasons. So far as the first submission advanced by Mr. Desai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 is well within the discretion of the authorities under the Act. The Tribunal while exercising discretion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X