Modvat credit and specific notice requirements defeat excise penalties where duty is covered and the exact contravention is not stated.

Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was found unsustainable because the assessee's available Modvat credit exceeded the duty otherwise payable on the disputed clearances, so no penalty was justified on that basis. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was also unsustainable because the show cause notice failed to specify the particular clause alleged to have been contravened, and a notice invoking that rule must clearly identify the exact contravention. Both penalties were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable in the facts of the case; (ii) Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable when the show cause notice did not specify the particular clause alleged to have been contravened.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The appellate authority had upheld or worked out penalty under Section 11AC, but the appellants were eligible for Modvat credit exceeding the duty liability on the disputed clearances. In such circumstances, the reasoning adopted in the cited precedent was applied that penalty is not justified where the available input credit is higher than the duty otherwise payable on the final product.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was held to be unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable when the show cause notice did not specify the particular clause alleged to have been contravened.

Analysis: Rule 173Q contains distinct clauses carrying different contraventions, and a notice invoking the rule must inform the assessee of the exact clause relied upon. As the show cause notice did not mention the specific clause, the assessee was not properly put to notice of the alleged violation, and penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 173Q was held to be unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were invalid, and the appeals succeeded to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty cannot be sustained where the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit exceeding the duty payable, and penalty under Rule 173Q requires the show cause notice to specify the exact clause of contravention alleged.

---