Cum-duty valuation and no retrospective interest or penalty sustain the Tribunal's view against the Revenue.

Clearances were to be assessed on a cum-duty basis where the governing valuation rule so required, and the Revenue's challenge failed because the issue was already covered against it. Interest and mandatory penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC could not be applied to a period before their commencement on 28.09.1996, as retrospective levy requires clear statutory language. The Tribunal's view was consistent with binding precedent, so the Court declined interference and sustained dismissal of the Revenue's challenge in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the clearances had to be treated as cum-duty value for duty computation. (ii) Whether interest and penalty under Section 11AB and Section 11AC could be levied for a period prior to their commencement.

Issue (i): Whether the clearances had to be treated as cum-duty value for duty computation.

Analysis: The question was governed by the settled principle applied in the cited Supreme Court authority, under which clearances are assessed on cum-duty value where the legal basis so warrants. On the facts, the Revenue's challenge did not dislodge the concurrent finding that the valuation issue stood covered against it.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest and penalty under Section 11AB and Section 11AC could be levied for a period prior to their commencement.

Analysis: The relevant provisions were introduced only with effect from 28.09.1996. A levy of mandatory interest or penalty cannot operate retrospectively in the absence of statutory language permitting such operation, and the Tribunal's view was consistent with the binding precedent relied upon.

Conclusion: Retrospective levy under Section 11AB and Section 11AC was impermissible for the earlier period and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's view and sustained the order dismissing the Revenue's challenge in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory interest and mandatory penalty provisions cannot be applied retrospectively unless the legislature clearly provides otherwise, and valuation on a cum-duty basis follows the governing legal rule applied to the assessed clearances.

---