Penalty orders remain valid where the source of power is clear, even if the exact sub-clause is not stated.

An adjudication order imposing penalty is not invalid merely because it does not expressly state the exact sub-section or clause of Section 112, if the source of power can still be clearly traced from the order. The reasoning accepts that where the order shows the matter falls under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, omission to identify the precise sub-clause is not fatal. On that basis, the penalty was held sustainable under Section 112(b), and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an adjudication order imposing penalty is vitiated when it does not expressly specify the particular sub-section or clause of Section 112, though the applicable basis can be identified from the order.

Analysis: The applicable penalty provision was examined in the context of conflicting authorities on whether omission to state the precise clause is fatal. The reasoning accepted that where the source of power can be validly traced and the order makes it clear that the case falls under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, the absence of an express mention of the exact sub-clause does not invalidate the order.

Conclusion: The omission to mention the precise sub-clause was not fatal. Penalty was sustainable under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, and the appeals failed.

---