https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49907 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC was examined in the context of alleged diversion of NGL obtained under Chapter X procedure. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had not recorded a proper basis for invoking the penalty provision, and that a major part of the duty demand had been dropped, warranting benefit of doubt on penalty. It also observed that Rule 196 already provided consequences for breach of Rule 192 through forfeiture of bond and confiscation, making a further penalty under Rule 173Q unnecessary on the facts discussed. The text further notes that the common penalty exceeded what Section 11AC contemplated. en-us Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:37:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49907 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC was examined in the context of alleged diversion of NGL obtained under Chapter X procedure. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had not recorded a proper basis for invoking the penalty provision, and that a major part of the duty demand had been dropped, warranting benefit of doubt on penalty. It also observed that Rule 196 already provided consequences for breach of Rule 192 through forfeiture of bond and confiscation, making a further penalty under Rule 173Q unnecessary on the facts discussed. The text further notes that the common penalty exceeded what Section 11AC contemplated. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49907