ORDER
Shri V.K. Agarwal
1.
In these two appeals filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the commissioner while confirming the demand of duty should have imposed a penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and should have charged interest under Section 11AB on the entire amount of duty demanded in the order.
2. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR submitted that the Commissioner under the impugned order confirmed the demand amounting to Rs.1,17,70,248.00 against the respondent by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Act; that having done so he should have imposed a penalty equal to the amount of duty under Section 11AC and should have also demanded the interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, for the reason that the show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 3.6.98 i.e. after the date of in actment of Finance Act, 1996. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Chandigarh (1984 (17) ELT 331 and Commr. of Central Excise Vs. India Linoleums Ltd. (1993 (67) ELT 678).
3. Opposing the appeal, Shri K.K. Bhattacharjee, ld. Consultant along with Madhusudan Dey, ld. Advocate, submitted that though the show-cause notice was issued on 3.6.98, the duty of demand pertains to the period from 21.5.93 to 22.8.95 ; that as such as period for which duty was demanded for the period when the provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC were not on the statute book. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of General Excise, Coimbatore Vs. ELGI Equipments Ltd. [2001 (128) ELT 52 (S.C.)]. Finally, he submitted that they had also filed an appeal against the impugned order which has been decided by the Tribunal vide Order No.A-1712-1713/Cal/2000 dated 17.10.2000 wherein it was held that the personal penalty imposed upon the respondents was reasonable and no interference was called for by the Tribunal.
4. We have considered the submission of both the sides. It is evident from the Show-cause notice dated 3.6.98, that the duty was demanded from the respondents for the period from 21.5.93 to 22.8.95. Provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC came into effect from 28.9.96. The Supreme Court in the case of ELGI Equipments Ltd. has held that provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is prospective in operation and the illegality committed prior to insertion of Section 11AC in the Act cannot be the subject matter of penalty under the said provisions. Respectfully following the ratio of the Apex Court’s judgment, we hold that neither penalty was imposable under Section 11AC nor interest was demandable under Section 11AB of the Act from the respondent. Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected.