https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119009 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the show-cause notice invoked only Rule 173Q, did not specify the particular sub-clause alleged to have been contravened, and did not invoke the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that this omission failed to put the assessee properly on notice of the alleged contravention, and treated the absence of a specific allegation as giving the appellants a prima facie case. Penalty was therefore not imposable, and unconditional stay was granted pending further orders. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:39:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119009 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the show-cause notice invoked only Rule 173Q, did not specify the particular sub-clause alleged to have been contravened, and did not invoke the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that this omission failed to put the assessee properly on notice of the alleged contravention, and treated the absence of a specific allegation as giving the appellants a prima facie case. Penalty was therefore not imposable, and unconditional stay was granted pending further orders. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119009