2002 (6) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llenges the constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and also challenges the order in original passed by respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Ahmedabad - 1 in so far as respondent No. 3 has imposed penalty under the provisions of the aforesaid Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) of the said Rules. 2. While issuing Rule on 8th F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervations made in the said judgment. This Court held, that although the provisions of Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules were not required to be declared as ultra vires, the authority was required to be directed to read the Rule in a reasonable manner, that is to say, the penalty stipulated therein is only the maximum amount which could be levied and the assessing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplication No. 164 of 2002 and other cognate matters. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order-in-original, dated 1st January, 2002 at Annexure "E" to the petition in so far as the order impose penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii), and the matter is remanded to the authorities. The remaining portions of the impugned order are not interfered with, for t....