Penalty confined to the correct excise rule where the misconduct did not satisfy the harsher penal provision.

A penalty imposed for invoices authenticated by an unauthorised employee could not be sustained under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) because the facts did not satisfy any clause of that penal provision. Although citing the wrong rule does not by itself invalidate a penalty where another provision lawfully applies, the conduct here was covered only by Rule 210, which authorised a maximum penalty of Rs. 1,000. The penalty was therefore confined to Rule 210 and reduced to Rs. 1,000 in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for invoices authenticated by an unauthorised employee was sustainable under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and if not, whether the penalty could be sustained under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The mere citation of a wrong rule does not by itself invalidate a penalty if another provision lawfully supports the action. However, on the facts found, the conduct did not fall within any of the clauses of Rule 173Q. The only provision capable of supporting a penalty was Rule 210, which prescribed a maximum penalty of Rs. 1,000.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained under Rule 173Q and was confined to Rule 210, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 1,000 in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty cannot be upheld under an inapplicable penal provision when the facts do not satisfy that rule, and in such a case the penalty must be limited to the provision that actually governs the misconduct.

---