https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237713 The Himachal Pradesh High Court considered whether questions of law should be referred on the validity of penalties under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It noted that although the Tribunal referred to Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the penalty could still be sustained under Rule 173Q, since a wrong or incomplete reference to the source of power does not invalidate an otherwise authorised order. The Court also accepted the Tribunal's finding that the Managing Director was involved in evasion and liable under Rule 209A, and held that prior offence and leniency considerations did not justify deletion of penalty. It directed reference of the questions of law. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2015 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237713 The Himachal Pradesh High Court considered whether questions of law should be referred on the validity of penalties under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It noted that although the Tribunal referred to Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the penalty could still be sustained under Rule 173Q, since a wrong or incomplete reference to the source of power does not invalidate an otherwise authorised order. The Court also accepted the Tribunal's finding that the Managing Director was involved in evasion and liable under Rule 209A, and held that prior offence and leniency considerations did not justify deletion of penalty. It directed reference of the questions of law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237713