https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114109 The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant for not maintaining records under Rule 173Q, emphasizing the lack of evidence of intentional duty evasion. It held that Rule 226 should have been applied instead of Rule 173Q for non-production of records. The Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty under Rule 173Q after dropping the duty demand was deemed unjustified as new grounds for penalties cannot be raised post-Show Cause Notice. The judgment underscored the importance of proportionate penalties based on alleged violations and evidence of intentional wrongdoing, ensuring fair enforcement of regulations. en-us Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2012 12:59:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114109 The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant for not maintaining records under Rule 173Q, emphasizing the lack of evidence of intentional duty evasion. It held that Rule 226 should have been applied instead of Rule 173Q for non-production of records. The Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty under Rule 173Q after dropping the duty demand was deemed unjustified as new grounds for penalties cannot be raised post-Show Cause Notice. The judgment underscored the importance of proportionate penalties based on alleged violations and evidence of intentional wrongdoing, ensuring fair enforcement of regulations. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114109