@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.K. Mathur, C.J.@mdashIn these batch of writ petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the validity of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the anvil of Arts. 14, 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India; therefore they are disposed of by this common order, For convenient disposal of all these petitions, facts given in W.P. No. 481 of 1997 are taken into consideration.
2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of sponge iron. He was served with show cause notice by the respondent No. 3 Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur dated 3rd December, 1995 and a corrigendum dated 26th November, 1996; therefore, he has rushed to challenge the validity of provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Act of 1944 on the anvil of Arts. 14, 19 and 20of the Constitution and has also sought writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 3.
3. Sections 11AB and 11AC were introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) with effect from 29th September, 1996 in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11AB relates to interest on delayed payment of duty and Section 11AC relates to penalty for levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases.
4. The contention of the Petitioner is that the provisions of these Sections 11AB and 11AC cannot be construed retrospectively. Therefore, they are arbitrary so far as the question of validity is concerned, it will be a futile exercise because sub-section (2) of Section 11AB has clearly laid down that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where duty became payable before the date on which the Finance (No. 2) Act received the assent of the President and a Circular dated 6th Jan., 1997 has also been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to all Commissioners whereby attention of all the Commissioners has been drawn to the fact that the provisions are prospective and not retrospective. Since the provisions of the Act and the circular of the Board leave no manner of doubt about the interpretation of the provisions, it would be futile exercise for us to embark upon the validity aspect of the said provisions that whether the provisions are prospective or retrospective. The matter has been clarified by the Board beyond doubt.
5. The Petitioners in all the petitions should file their reply to the show cause notices in view of the Circular of the Board and the authorities shall decide the same in accordance with law. The petitions are disposed of in the light of Board Circular and sub-section (2) of Section 11AB of the Excise Act of 1944. There shall be no order as to cost.
