https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42065 Central Excise penalty provisions were read with the recovery rule to determine whether liability could extend beyond the company to the person who signed the declaration. Rule 173-Q was treated as the source of penalty liability against the manufacturer, producer or licensee, while Rule 221(2) was treated as a recovery provision that fastens payment liability on the corporation and the signatory. On that construction, the provisions operated in distinct fields of levy and collection, so treating the petitioner as liable for payment of the company's penalty did not create an impermissible double levy. The challenge to the penalty was rejected and the liability was upheld. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:30:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42065 Central Excise penalty provisions were read with the recovery rule to determine whether liability could extend beyond the company to the person who signed the declaration. Rule 173-Q was treated as the source of penalty liability against the manufacturer, producer or licensee, while Rule 221(2) was treated as a recovery provision that fastens payment liability on the corporation and the signatory. On that construction, the provisions operated in distinct fields of levy and collection, so treating the petitioner as liable for payment of the company's penalty did not create an impermissible double levy. The challenge to the penalty was rejected and the liability was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42065