https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118372 A penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not vitiated merely because Rule 173Q was also mentioned. The Tribunal held that the earlier decision had been misread and that the relevant penalty order and show cause notice clearly invoked the substantive provision authorising action under Rule 96ZO(3). The additional or incorrect reference to another rule did not nullify the penalty where the operative basis for the levy was apparent from the record. The setting aside of the penalty was therefore unsustainable, and the penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) remained valid. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:48:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118372 A penalty imposed under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not vitiated merely because Rule 173Q was also mentioned. The Tribunal held that the earlier decision had been misread and that the relevant penalty order and show cause notice clearly invoked the substantive provision authorising action under Rule 96ZO(3). The additional or incorrect reference to another rule did not nullify the penalty where the operative basis for the levy was apparent from the record. The setting aside of the penalty was therefore unsustainable, and the penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) remained valid. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118372