2002 (4) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to refer the following question for the opinion of this Court :- "Whether the Tribunal was correct in vacating the demand for penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act in short) holding that Section 11AC of the Act came into Statute Book with effect from 22-8-1996 only while the duty in instant case was sought to be determined under sub-section (2) of Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal. It was accepted by the Commissioner vide order dated February 13, 2000. The Revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal. The appeal having been dismissed vide order dated September 13, 2000, the Revenue has filed the present petition. 3.The solitary contention raised by Ms. Shahi, learned Counsel for the Revenue is that even if the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act were not retro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntention is shown to have been raised before the Tribunal. Even the question as framed by the Revenue does not refer to the provision of Rule 173Q. Thus, it cannot be said that Rule 173Q can now be invoked by the Revenue. The question as framed by the Revenue is admittedly concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. D18869 of 1998 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X