https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106967 A stay application under section 35F of the Central Excise Act was examined against allegations of contravention of Rule 173H, with the demand based on a difference between returned defective goods and the goods later cleared without duty. The order noted that the findings below did not fully align with the show cause notice, but held that prima facie the goods cleared were thicker than those received back, indicating a Rule 173H contravention. It also observed that the penalty under Rule 9(2) appeared to exceed the prescribed maximum. As a result, the applicants were directed to deposit Rs. 12,000 towards the penalties within four weeks. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:27:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106967 A stay application under section 35F of the Central Excise Act was examined against allegations of contravention of Rule 173H, with the demand based on a difference between returned defective goods and the goods later cleared without duty. The order noted that the findings below did not fully align with the show cause notice, but held that prima facie the goods cleared were thicker than those received back, indicating a Rule 173H contravention. It also observed that the penalty under Rule 9(2) appeared to exceed the prescribed maximum. As a result, the applicants were directed to deposit Rs. 12,000 towards the penalties within four weeks. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106967