https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90882 Rule 173Q penalties can be imposed for removal of excisable goods and failure to maintain proper accounts even without proof of mala fide intention, where contravention of the Central Excise Rules and improper accounting are established. By contrast, a penalty equal to disallowed credit under Rule 57-I requires proof of fraud, wilful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts; absent such culpable conduct, that penalty is not justified. The commentary also notes that penalty quantum should be proportionate to the gravity of the proven breach. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:44:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90882 Rule 173Q penalties can be imposed for removal of excisable goods and failure to maintain proper accounts even without proof of mala fide intention, where contravention of the Central Excise Rules and improper accounting are established. By contrast, a penalty equal to disallowed credit under Rule 57-I requires proof of fraud, wilful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts; absent such culpable conduct, that penalty is not justified. The commentary also notes that penalty quantum should be proportionate to the gravity of the proven breach. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90882