Penalty must match the specific excise contravention; Rule 173Q could not be used for a Rule 173H breach.

Contravention of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by receiving duty-paid goods back after repair beyond the prescribed period without permission attracted only the penalty linked to that breach. Rule 173Q, which governs removal-related defaults, could not be used to impose a higher penalty because it did not correspond to the nature of the contravention. The applicable penalty was confined to the limited maximum prescribed under Rule 210, and the penalty was therefore restricted to that provision rather than enhanced under Rule 173Q.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for contravention of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether the matter was confined to the limited penalty prescribed under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The goods were received back after repair beyond the prescribed period without permission, constituting a contravention of Rule 173H. The governing penalty provision had to correspond to the nature of the breach. Rule 173Q dealt with removal-related defaults and was not applicable to a contravention relating to receipt of duty-paid goods for repairs. In the circumstances, the only penalty available was the maximum amount specified under Rule 210.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 173Q was not sustainable for the contravention of Rule 173H, and the penalty was correctly restricted to Rs. 1,000/- under Rule 210, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty can be imposed only under the provision that specifically governs the nature of the contravention, and a provision dealing with a different class of default cannot be invoked to enhance the penalty.

---