Penalty under Rule 57-I(4) cannot be imposed where Tribunal views differ on the issue.

Penalty under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not imposable where the issue has been the subject of differing Tribunal views, because the rule contemplates fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. On that basis, although the duty demand was conceded, the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was imposable under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the Tribunal had taken differing views on the issue.

Analysis: The appellant conceded the duty demand but contested the penalty. The governing rule provided for penalty where credit was wrongly taken with the requisite element of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal accepted the contention that, in the presence of differing views of the Tribunal on the issue, penalty ought not to be imposed.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 57-I(4) was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there are differing views of the Tribunal on the point in issue, penalty is not imposable under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

---