2002 (4) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lty of Rs. 10,000/-, with consent of both sides. 2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the penalty imposed on the appellant by the Asst. Commissioner, for the reason that the invoices issued by the appellant under Rule 52A were authenticated by an employee who was not properly authorised to so. 3. The contention of the appellant before the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther provisions of law under which the penalty could be imposed. None of the provisions of Rule 173Q appears to me to apply to a situation of this kind. The only authority then for imposition of penalty would be Rule 210 providing a maximum penalty of Rs. 1000/-. I am therefore of the view that penalty in this case should have been imposed under this rule. It is therefore reduced to Rs. 1000/- 5. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X