https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218225 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the show cause notice had invoked only Rule 96ZQ(6) read with Rule 173Q. The notice and the adjudication proceeded on distinct defaults and distinct penalties: Rule 96ZQ(6) concerned non-accountal and clandestine clearance, while Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) related to delayed payment of duty. Because the notice did not specifically charge the assessee under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), the assessee was not informed of the precise allegation or possible consequence. The penalty was therefore set aside and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218225 Penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the show cause notice had invoked only Rule 96ZQ(6) read with Rule 173Q. The notice and the adjudication proceeded on distinct defaults and distinct penalties: Rule 96ZQ(6) concerned non-accountal and clandestine clearance, while Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) related to delayed payment of duty. Because the notice did not specifically charge the assessee under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), the assessee was not informed of the precise allegation or possible consequence. The penalty was therefore set aside and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218225