https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51531 A penalty imposed for invoices authenticated by an unauthorised employee could not be sustained under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) because the facts did not satisfy any clause of that penal provision. Although citing the wrong rule does not by itself invalidate a penalty where another provision lawfully applies, the conduct here was covered only by Rule 210, which authorised a maximum penalty of Rs. 1,000. The penalty was therefore confined to Rule 210 and reduced to Rs. 1,000 in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:35:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51531 A penalty imposed for invoices authenticated by an unauthorised employee could not be sustained under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) because the facts did not satisfy any clause of that penal provision. Although citing the wrong rule does not by itself invalidate a penalty where another provision lawfully applies, the conduct here was covered only by Rule 210, which authorised a maximum penalty of Rs. 1,000. The penalty was therefore confined to Rule 210 and reduced to Rs. 1,000 in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51531