Composite penalty requires separate reasoned findings under each invoked rule; mechanical affirmation was unsustainable.

A composite penalty under Rule 9(2), Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the order did not examine the distinct ingredients of each provision. The appellate authority had mechanically affirmed the adjudication without recording cogent evidence or reasoned findings showing how each rule was attracted. As the order failed to disclose the factual basis for invoking the separate penalty provisions, the composite penalty was held unsustainable and the impugned appellate order was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a composite penalty could be sustained when the order did not independently examine the ingredients of Rule 9(2), Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The rules invoked by the department operated in distinct fields and prescribed different circumstances for imposition of penalty. The appellate authority mechanically affirmed the adjudication without examining whether the factual ingredients of each rule were satisfied. No cogent evidence or reasoned finding was recorded to justify the composite penalty, and the order failed to disclose the basis for invoking the respective rules.

Conclusion: The composite penalty was not sustainable and the impugned appellate order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the penalty order was found to be unreasoned and unsupported by the requisite factual findings under the invoked rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty order invoking distinct provisions cannot be sustained unless it contains specific, reasoned findings showing how the ingredients of each provision are attracted.

---