UNION OF INDIA Vs. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. The 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 Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 ( the Rules' for short) to contend that no discretion rests with the authority under the Act to reduce the amount of penalty.

(3.) Mr. Desai also contended that Rule 25 is identical with that of Section 11AC of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that if there is no discretion left to reduce penalty under Section 11AC, then, one cannot read discretion in favour of the authorities under Rule 25. He, thus, submits that there is no discretion left with the authority under the Act and Rules to reduce the amount of penalty.