https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32418 Composite penalty was not legally permissible where the authorities did not clearly identify the precise provision under which penalty was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal's view deleting the penalty was upheld because the case did not involve apportionment of a single penalty between distinct contraventions, and the facts did not justify sustaining a consolidated penalty. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's approach on re-determination of quantum where contraventions could not be apportioned, and found no substantial question of law arising for interference. en-us Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32418 Composite penalty was not legally permissible where the authorities did not clearly identify the precise provision under which penalty was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal's view deleting the penalty was upheld because the case did not involve apportionment of a single penalty between distinct contraventions, and the facts did not justify sustaining a consolidated penalty. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's approach on re-determination of quantum where contraventions could not be apportioned, and found no substantial question of law arising for interference. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32418