Penalty under Rule 173Q fails where the show cause notice omits allegations required to trigger Section 11AC

Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as unsustainable because the show cause notice did not allege collusion, suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or fraud. The analysis applied the statutory preconditions linked to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and found that, in the absence of those essential allegations, the notice did not establish the basis needed to support the penalty. On that footing, the impugned appellate order was set aside and the penalty was not imposable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustainable when the show cause notice did not allege collusion, suppression of facts, wilful misstatement or fraud so as to attract Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The show cause notice and the record were examined to see whether the statutory ingredients required for penalty were present. The notice did not contain allegations of collusion, suppression or wilful misstatement, and on that basis the preconditions for invoking Section 11AC were not satisfied. Since Rule 173Q penalty was sought to be sustained on the same foundation, the absence of these essential allegations made the penalty unsustainable.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not imposable and the impugned appellate order was set aside.

---