Penalty notice validity turns on clear factual contravention, not omission of the exact penal rule where no prejudice is caused.

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 remains sustainable where the show cause notice clearly alleges removal of excisable goods without proper invoice and in contravention of Rule 11, even if Rule 25 is not specifically cited. The omission to mention the penal provision was treated as inadvertent because the noticee was adequately informed of the exact charge and suffered no prejudice in responding to it. A vague-notice objection fails where the factual basis and nature of the alleged violation are sufficiently disclosed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be sustained when the show cause notice did not specifically cite that provision but clearly alleged removal of excisable goods in contravention of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The show cause notice set out in detail that excisable goods had been removed without proper invoice and expressly alleged contravention of Rule 11. Rule 25(1)(a) penalises removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules, and the assessee was thus informed of the exact nature of the charge. The omission to mention Rule 25 in the notice was held to be a mere inadvertent omission, causing no prejudice because the noticee had sufficient opportunity to answer the allegations and meet the case against it. The principle in the cited precedent against vague notice did not apply on these facts, as the nature of the violation was clearly disclosed.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 25 was validly imposed notwithstanding the non-mention of the rule in the show cause notice, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the show cause notice clearly specifies the factual contravention and the exact nature of the alleged violation, non-mention of the precise penal provision does not vitiate the proceedings if no prejudice is caused to the noticee.

---