Vague penalty notice under Rule 173Q cannot sustain liability without identifying the exact contravention clause.

Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the show cause notice and the adjudication order failed to specify the exact clause or sub-rule allegedly contravened. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that penalty proceedings must give clear notice of the precise basis of liability, especially where Rule 173Q contains distinct clauses carrying different consequences. In the absence of such specification, the foundational notice was vague and the penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained when the show cause notice and the adjudication order did not specify the particular clause or sub-rule allegedly contravened.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings were founded on Rule 173Q, but neither the notice nor the order-in-original identified the exact clause or sub-rule invoked. Rule 173Q contained distinct clauses carrying different consequences, and the assessee was entitled to clear notice of the precise contravention alleged. The Tribunal followed the settled principle that a penalty cannot be upheld where the foundational notice is vague and does not disclose the specific basis of liability.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 173Q could not be sustained in the absence of specification of the exact clause or sub-rule, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

---