Composite penalty under customs and excise law was held impermissible where the applicable provision was not clearly identified.

Composite penalty was not legally permissible where the authorities did not clearly identify the precise provision under which penalty was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal's view deleting the penalty was upheld because the case did not involve apportionment of a single penalty between distinct contraventions, and the facts did not justify sustaining a consolidated penalty. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's approach on re-determination of quantum where contraventions could not be apportioned, and found no substantial question of law arising for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether a composite or consolidated penalty could be imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order deleting the penalty.

Analysis: The Court held that the authorities had not clearly identified the precise provision for which penalty was being levied and that apportionment of penalty was not the issue on the facts. It accepted the Tribunal's view that a consolidated penalty under the two distinct provisions was not legally permissible. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's approach on re-determination of quantum where the contraventions could not be apportioned, and held that the present case did not justify sustaining a composite penalty.

Conclusion: The composite or consolidated penalty was not leviable, and no substantial question of law arose for interference with the Tribunal's order deleting the penalty.

---