TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the absence of pre-printed particulars on invoices amounted to a contravention of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- required reduction in the facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether the absence of pre-printed particulars on invoices amounted to a contravention of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The invoices issued by the dealer did not have the required particulars pre-printed and those particulars were rubber-stamped instead. The statutory requirement under Rule 57GG was for such particulars to be pre-printed on the invoice. The lapse was treated as a procedural statutory contravention, notwithstanding that the documents were later accepted for Modvat purposes at the customers' end.
Conclusion: The contravention of Rule 57GG was established, and the assessee was held guilty of the procedural breach.
Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- required reduction in the facts of the case.
Analysis: Although the procedural violation was proved, the surrounding circumstances were considered sufficient to warrant only a nominal penalty. The matter was treated as a technical lapse rather than a serious infraction, and the penalty was calibrated accordingly.
Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 500/-.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalty, while the finding of procedural contravention was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A technical breach of the pre-printed particulars requirement under Rule 57GG may justify penalty, but the quantum can be reduced to a token amount where the contravention is procedural and the circumstances so warrant.
TaxTMI 
