Penalty under Section 11AC and disputed duty valuation were set aside in part, with remand for fresh verification.

Penalty under Section 11AC could not be sustained for clearances made before that provision came into force, and the show cause notice had not invoked it as the penalty basis; the penalty was therefore set aside. The duty demand and valuation dispute turned on the correct value-addition percentage, the validity and effect of DTA permission, compliance with applicable FTZ/EOU instructions, and related limitation issues; because the factual foundation required fresh verification, the demand was not finally affirmed and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 11AC could be sustained for clearances relating to a period prior to its enactment. (ii) Whether the duty demand and valuation controversy required fresh verification and remand, including consideration of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 11AC could be sustained for clearances relating to a period prior to its enactment.

Analysis: The disputed clearances pertained to 1993-94 and 1994-95, while Section 11AC came into force only later. The show cause notice also did not invoke Section 11AC as a penalty provision. In such circumstances, the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC could not be upheld.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand and valuation controversy required fresh verification and remand, including consideration of limitation.

Analysis: The record showed dispute over the correct value addition percentage and the validity of the DTA permission. The matter also involved whether the relevant circular instructions governing FTZ/EOU proceedings had been followed and whether the Commissioner could determine the effect of the Development Commissioner's permission without proper consultation and verification. Since the issue required fresh verification of the factual basis and the limitation question could be re-appreciated if necessary, a remand was warranted.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not finally affirmed and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after verification.

Final Conclusion: The order of penalty was unsustainable, and the substantive dispute over duty liability was sent back for reconsideration on the factual and legal issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty provision cannot be applied to past clearances unless it was in force and properly invoked, and where the factual basis for duty liability remains in dispute, the matter must be remanded for proper verification and adjudication.

---