ORDER
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the penalty as well as Interest which was imposed under Section 11-AC and 11-AB respectively of the Central Excise Act. Heard both sides.
2. Shri Ravi Shankar submitted that the Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that Section 11-AC &11-AB are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. In the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner was right in dropping the respective penalty as well as interest imposed under the relavant sections. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs IG Equipments reported in 2001 (128)EIT 52 (SC), wherein it was held that Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 is prospective in operation. Illegality (sic) prior to insertion of said Section in the Act can not be the (sic) matter of the penalty under the said provision. It was also (sic) by Shri Ravi Shankar that against the confirmation of the (sic) the party has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the (sic) vide Order No 1566 to 1569/98 dated 12.8.98 has set aside the demand. In view of this settled position we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court)