ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. Shri Kulvinder Singh, ld. Counsel arguing the appeal submits that a very short point required determination in this appeal. He submits that in the Show Cause Notice there was no stipulation for imposition of penalty or mention of contravention of the Rule requiring imposition of penalty. He, therefore, submits that the lower authorities have travelled beyond the scope and ambit of the Show Cause Notice by imposing penalty on the appellants. In support of his contention he cited and relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 104 (Tribunal), in the case of Everest Convenors v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 91 (Tribunal) and in the case of Bharat Woollen Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 60 (Tribunal). He submits that their case is fully covered by the ratio of the decisions of this Tribunal in the above cases and prays that the appeal may be allowed.
2. Shri Satnam Singh, ld. SDR reiterated the findings of the lower atithority.
3. Heard the submissions of both sides. We have seen the Show Cause Notice and perused it. We find that there is no stipulation for imposition of penalty. In the Show Cause Notice only Rule 57E has been quoted. This rule deals with recovery of money credit wrongly taken etc. and does not stipulate imposition of penalty. There is no other rule quoted in the Show Cause Notice providing for imposition of penalty. We have also perused the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. We find that the Tribunal in all the three cases cited supra, held that penalty is not sustainable when Show Cause Notice does not contain any proposal for taking penal action against the noticee. Following the ratio of the above judgments we hold that penalty was not imposable in the instant case.
4. In the result, the impugned order imposing penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed.