Excise penalty duplication was curtailed as Rule 173Q penalty was removed while Section 11AC penalty was sustained.

In a second round of litigation concerning overlapping excise penalties, the Tribunal held that sustaining penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was sufficient to meet the ends of justice, so a separate penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was unnecessary. The Rule 173Q penalty was set aside, while the Section 11AC penalty was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the circumstances of a second round of litigation and the nature of the dispute, the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was liable to be set aside while the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was sustained.

Analysis: Penalties had been imposed under both provisions. The matter involved a second round of litigation and the dispute was considered sufficient to warrant modification of the penal consequences. The Tribunal found that sustaining the penalty under Section 11AC would meet the ends of justice, and that a separate penalty under Rule 173Q was not necessary.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside, while the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was maintained.

---