C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Sankeshwar Hosiery Indus.

.....prasad pvt. ltd. vs. cce cal-ii reported in 1998 (102) elt 705 (t), he had held that effects of section 11ab for recovery of the interest and section 11ac for mandatory imposition of penalty equivalent to 100% duty of (sic) are not to be applied retrospectively, since, the provisions contained therein are of substantive character and not just procedural. the commissioner (appeals) in his order has observed that these provisions of central excise act, 1944 came into effect with effect from 28.9.96 and prior to this date, the same would have no applicability. the commissioner (appeals) has further observed in his order that the department filed an appeal before the hon'ble supreme court against the cited judgement of the cegat, but the apex court dismissed the appeal of the department.2. i have heard shri a.k. jain, jdr for the appellants and shri g.s.bhangoo, advocate for the respondents. it is contended in the revenue appeal that in the appeal filed by the department against the above cited decision of the tribunal, no detailed judgement was passed by the hon'ble supreme court and the substantial question of law will remain open for decision in the absence of any resowed dismissal of civil appeal of the department. the ld. advocate for the respondents refers to the latest judgement of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of cce, coimbatore vs. elgi equipments ltd. reported in 2001 (128) elt 52 (s.c), in which it is held that section 11ac of the central excise act, 1944, is prospective in operation and the illegality committed prior to insertion of section 11ac in the act, cannot be the subject matter or penalty under the said provision.3. in view of the above clear position in law on the subject as held by the apex court, there is no force in the revenue's appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.