Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Cce, Bangalore vs M/S. Sastha Plastics (India) (P) Ltd. on 9 May, 2001
ORDER
Shri G.A. Brahma Deva
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue.
2. The department has (sic) erred in not levying the penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act.
3. The short-point to be considered in this case is whether Section 11 AC has got retrospective effect. The period relates to 1.4.94 to 31.3.96. The said provision was incorporated in the statute on 28.9.96. the very issue has come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Markendeys Prasad(1999(102) ELT 705). The Tribunal has taken the view that since it was introduced subsequent to the period of dispute it had no retrospective effect. The view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 1999 (107) ELT 121. Further this view was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs Elgee Equipments (2001 (128) ELT 525 (SC). In that case it has relied upon the earlier decicions in the case of Mithilesh Kumari Vs Prem Behari Khare 1989 (40) ELT 257 and observed therein as under:
"The presumption against retrospective operation is strong in cases in which the statute, if operated retrospectively, would prejudicially affect vested rights or ther illegality of the past transaction, or impair contracts, or impose new duty or attach new disability in respect of past transactions or consideratin already passed."
5. Since the issue involved has already been considered and concluded by the Apex Court, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Department. Accordingly appeal is hereby dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)