2012 (11) TMI 240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... offence and the liability to penalty is explained, mere quoting of a wrong rule does not vitiate the proceedings - Respondents cannot be found fault with, if they presume that they are not being penalized for delayed payment of Excise duty in the month of July 2009, in the absence of proposal for penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) - In the absence’ of specific charge, original adjudicating authority c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on the ground that Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii) was not invoked in the Show Cause Notice and he would submit that it is settled law that if the nature of offence and the liability to penalty is explained, mere quoting of a wrong rule does not vitiate the proceedings. Even though he cited several decisions and ld. Counsel for the respondents also cited several decisions, I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e separate offences and provide for separate penalties. This being the position, it was necessary that both the rules should have been invoked in the Show Cause Notice. Respondents cannot be found fault with, if they presume that they are not being penalized for delayed payment of Excise duty in the month of July 2009, in the absence of proposal for penalty under Rule 96ZQ(5)(ii). In the absence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X