COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. INDIAN MAGNETICS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this Excise Reference the Revenue has prayed that the Tribunal be directed to frame the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:-

(2.) This order was challenged by the manufacturer and the Managing Director before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the proceedings related to the period 2-11-1992 to May, 1994. It came to the conclusion that since Sections 11AB and 11AC were introduced in the statute book only on 28-9-1996 no interest or penalty could have been imposed. The personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed upon the Managing Director was set-aside on the ground that in an earlier case for a similar offence the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs had been reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. This order is under challenge before us.

(3.) There can be no manner of doubt that as far as Sections 11AB and 11AC are concerned, the Tribunal was right in holding that since these provisions came into the statute book w.e.f. 28-9-1996 only, the authorities could not have relied upon these provisions to impose penalty and interest in respect of the proceedings relating to the period prior to 28-9-1996. However, we find that Rule 173Q of the Rules also provides for imposition of penalty up to three times of the value of the goods. In the present case the penalty imposed is only equivalent to the duty imposed on the goods. Even if Sections 11AB and 11AC were not applicable the authorities had also made reference to Rule 173Q and derived power under this Rule to impose penalty.