https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107175 Breach of the time limit for returning goods sent for repairs or reconditioning under Rule 173H did not justify penalty where the delay was technical and no intent to evade duty was found. The Tribunal noted that Rule 210 could be invoked if no specific penalty was provided for the violation, but penalty is meant to secure compliance, not to punish every venial breach. It also noted that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q. On those facts, the penalty was held unjustified and was set aside. en-us Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:20:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107175 Breach of the time limit for returning goods sent for repairs or reconditioning under Rule 173H did not justify penalty where the delay was technical and no intent to evade duty was found. The Tribunal noted that Rule 210 could be invoked if no specific penalty was provided for the violation, but penalty is meant to secure compliance, not to punish every venial breach. It also noted that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q. On those facts, the penalty was held unjustified and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107175