Penalty cannot follow breach of a duty concession where the rule only conditions benefit, not statutory obligation.

Rule 210 permits penalty only for breach of a statutory obligation where no separate penalty applies. Rule 173H, however, is a concession allowing duty-paid goods to be brought back into a factory and cleared without duty subject to conditions; non-compliance may justify refusal of the concession, but it does not by itself create penal liability. An order that both allows the Rule 173H benefit and imposes penalty for its alleged violation is inconsistent and cannot be sustained. The penalty was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the latter only granted a concession for clearance of duty-paid goods.

Analysis: Rule 210 authorises penalty only where a statutory obligation to do or refrain from doing an act is breached and no other penalty is provided. Rule 173H merely confers a concession permitting duty-paid goods to be brought into a factory and cleared without payment of duty subject to its conditions. Failure to satisfy those conditions may justify denial of the concession, but it does not by itself attract penal liability. An order that simultaneously grants the concession under Rule 173H and imposes penalty for its alleged violation is inconsistent and unsustainable.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 210 could not be sustained for breach of Rule 173H; the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---