Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained under Rule 173Q(1)(b) for non-accountal of goods not covered by the notice and not shown to have been manufactured by the appellant.
Analysis: Rule 173Q(1)(b) fastens liability only where a manufacturer does not account for excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by it. The notice did not allege manufacture of the crankcase and connecting rods, nor did it suggest that the final machining carried out on those parts amounted to manufacture. The upper and lower housings were admittedly received from other manufacturers and were not subjected to processing by the appellant. The notice was confined to compressors, and did not propose penalty on the separate footing of incorrect accounts of these parts. The penalty imposed by the Collector for those goods therefore travelled beyond the notice and could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the appellant succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside because the adverse finding rested on matters outside the scope of the notice and outside the statutory basis invoked.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for non-accountal of excisable goods cannot be imposed on goods or allegations not covered by the notice, and cannot be upheld unless the goods are shown to be those manufactured, produced or stored by the assessee within the meaning of the penalty provision.