https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95161 Penalty under the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained unless the facts squarely fit the invoked provision and the same penal basis is set out in the notice and applied in the order. A registered dealer was found outside Rule 173Q(1)(bb) and Rule 173Q(1)(d) because the provisions did not cover the alleged facilitation of inadmissible credit on the facts recorded, and Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) could not be relied on when it was neither alleged nor applicable on the version then in force. Penalties on the connected appellants also failed because the notice proceeded under Rule 173Q while the order imposed penalty under Rule 209A, causing a mismatch in the foundation for penalty. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:08:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95161 Penalty under the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained unless the facts squarely fit the invoked provision and the same penal basis is set out in the notice and applied in the order. A registered dealer was found outside Rule 173Q(1)(bb) and Rule 173Q(1)(d) because the provisions did not cover the alleged facilitation of inadmissible credit on the facts recorded, and Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) could not be relied on when it was neither alleged nor applicable on the version then in force. Penalties on the connected appellants also failed because the notice proceeded under Rule 173Q while the order imposed penalty under Rule 209A, causing a mismatch in the foundation for penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95161