Prospective operation of Central Excise penalty and interest provisions led the court to require replies to show cause notices first.

Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act were described as operating prospectively, with Section 11AB(2) excluding cases where duty had become payable before the relevant assent date and the Board circular stating the same position. On that basis, the writ challenge to validity and retrospectivity was not pursued in the abstract; the petitioners were directed to first reply to the show cause notices, and the authorities were to decide the matter in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the validity and retrospectivity of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 required adjudication in writ proceedings, and whether the petitioners should first reply to the show cause notices in light of the Board circular and Section 11AB(2).

Analysis: The petitions questioned the constitutional validity of Sections 11AB and 11AC on the grounds of Articles 14, 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India, but the order records that Section 11AB(2) excludes its operation where duty became payable before the relevant assent date and that the Board circular clarified that the provisions were prospective. On that basis, the Court treated the controversy as already clarified by the statutory provision and the circular, and directed the petitioners to submit replies to the show cause notices so that the authorities could decide the matter in accordance with law.

Outcome: The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to file replies to the show cause notices and with a direction to the authorities to decide the matter according to law.

---