COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. TELCO, JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point involved in this ease Is with respect to the interpretation of Section 11 -AB of the Central Excise Act. 1944 relating to the liability to pay Interest on the amount of duty as determined and held payable in terms of the adjudication earlier held under Section 11 -A of the Act. Vide judgment dated 23rd, July. 1999 the Customs. Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). Eastern Bench. Calcutta, set aside that part of the order impugned before it whereby penalty was imposed upon the respondent. But in course of the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, the question relating to the imposition of interest was not dealt with. Accordingly, the respondent filed a Review Application (calling it a miscellaneous application for rectification of the mistake) and the Tribunal vide order dated 8.2.2001 while referring to Section 11 -AB of the Act held that since the period for which the duty in question was held to be payable was between 1.4.1989 to 30.6.1995. which was not covered by Section 11 -AB of the Act. the respondent was not liable to pay interest on the said amount of duty determined and payable.

(2.) IN the present application, the Revenue wants us to frame the following question of law for our adjudication.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced on 25.1.1999 in Civil Appeal No. D -18869 of 1998 filed against the order of CEGAT passed on 19.3.1998 and submitted that the aforesaid Civil Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the aforesaid order of CEGAT was upheld. That order was passed under Section 11 -AC of the Act. Section 11 -AC is. admittedly, in pari -materia to Section 11 -AB. In this case, the Tribunal had held that Section 11 -AC was prospective in operation. 2001 (132) ELT 543 (Karnataka). wherein their Lordships have also taken the view that Section 11 -AB and 11 -AC are prospective in operation. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid view and based on the aforesaid discussion and our understanding of Section 11 -AB. particularly the specific language employed in Sub -section (2) thereof, we hold that this section being prospective in operation the respondent is not liable to pay interest on the duly determined and payable for the period in question before the section was made applicable and accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was correct and justified in passing the order dated 8.2.2001. 6. The application of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.