9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that here the High Court clearly fell into error. Undoubtedly, Section 11AC is a penal provision. Once it is held to be prospective in nature, it becomes effective only from the date it was brought into force i.e. 28-9-1996. Therefore, no penalty for the period prior to this date can be imposed under this provision. The penalty for the period 1-4-1994 to 27-9-1996 set aside - penalty from 28-9-1996 onwards is upheld - appeal allowed in part. - Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2019 - A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, Divyakant Lahoti, AOR, Ms. Praveena Bisht, Ms. Amrita Grover, Parikshit Ahuja and Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocates, for the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 100% mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. The appellant preferred an appeal against the assessment order dated 31-3-2000 before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the case of the appellant allowed the appeal substantially. It is held that excise duty on machined goods cleared under the brand name had been rightly confirmed by the adjudicating authority. However, no duty was chargeable on clearance of goods cleared under brand names Gwalior and Tusker . It is further held that mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was reduced equivalent to duty to be levied on goods cleared by the appellant for the period commencing from 28-9-1996. The appellant challenged the order dated 29-8-2003 passed by the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated, was brought on the statute book by amendment only w.e.f. 28-9-1996. It is held by the High Court itself in the impugned judgment that Section 11AC is prospective in nature. In spite of that the High Court has upheld the penalty imposed by the appellant for the entire period including the period prior to 28-9-1996. We are of the opinion that here the High Court clearly fell into error. Undoubtedly, Section 11AC is a penal provision. Once it is held to be prospective in nature, it becomes effective only from the date it was brought into force i.e. 28-9-1996. Therefore, no penalty for the period prior to this date can be imposed under this provision. 5. We, therefore, allow this appeal partly thereby quashing the penalty for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
