Wrong citation of a rule does not vitiate demand or penalty when the contravention and legal basis are clearly stated.

A wrong citation of the enabling rule does not invalidate a demand or penalty where the contravention, the basis of liability and the jurisdictional foundation are clearly stated in the notice or order. Here, the allegation that duty was not paid on the due dates and that clearance during the forfeited period required payment by debit to the account current was clearly communicated, so the incorrect rule reference was treated as non-fatal. The principle applied is that an order or show cause notice remains valid if the authority otherwise has power to act and the substance of the charge is apparent.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand and penalty are vitiated merely because the show cause notice or order refers to the wrong rule, when the contravention and the basis of liability are otherwise clearly stated.

Analysis: The notice set out the charge that duty had not been paid on the due dates and that, during the forfeited period, clearance could be made only on payment of duty by debit to the account current. The Tribunal held that a mere wrong citation of the enabling rule does not invalidate the exercise of power if the authority otherwise had the power and the nature of the violation was clearly communicated. Reliance was placed on the principle that quoting an incorrect provision is not fatal where the substance of the allegation and the jurisdictional basis are apparent.

Conclusion: The wrong mention of the rule did not vitiate the demand or penalty, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An order or show cause notice is not invalidated by an incorrect citation of the statutory provision if the alleged contravention is clearly stated and the authority otherwise possesses the power to act.

---