https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246271 A composite penalty under Rule 9(2), Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the order did not examine the distinct ingredients of each provision. The appellate authority had mechanically affirmed the adjudication without recording cogent evidence or reasoned findings showing how each rule was attracted. As the order failed to disclose the factual basis for invoking the separate penalty provisions, the composite penalty was held unsustainable and the impugned appellate order was liable to be set aside. en-us Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:34:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246271 A composite penalty under Rule 9(2), Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained because the order did not examine the distinct ingredients of each provision. The appellate authority had mechanically affirmed the adjudication without recording cogent evidence or reasoned findings showing how each rule was attracted. As the order failed to disclose the factual basis for invoking the separate penalty provisions, the composite penalty was held unsustainable and the impugned appellate order was liable to be set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246271