https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93223 A trade notice or departmental circular issued under Rule 233 could not, by itself, support penalty under Rule 173Q when Modvat credit had already been allowed and the only alleged default was non-observance of procedural conditions. The Tribunal held that the trade notice did not have the force of a statutory rule carrying penal consequences, and reliance on Rule 173H did not change that position. As the penalty was founded solely on breach of Trade Notice No. 20/93, it lacked legal support and was set aside. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:54:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93223 A trade notice or departmental circular issued under Rule 233 could not, by itself, support penalty under Rule 173Q when Modvat credit had already been allowed and the only alleged default was non-observance of procedural conditions. The Tribunal held that the trade notice did not have the force of a statutory rule carrying penal consequences, and reliance on Rule 173H did not change that position. As the penalty was founded solely on breach of Trade Notice No. 20/93, it lacked legal support and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93223