Penalty and confiscation cannot be implied into additional excise duty law without express statutory authority.

Penalty and confiscation under the Central Excise Rules could not be applied to additional duties of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 because section 3(3) incorporated the central excise machinery only for levy and collection, with limited reference to refund and exemption. The Court held that penal and confiscatory liabilities are distinct from collection machinery and require clear, express legislative authority; they cannot be created by implication or broad construction. On that basis, the show cause notices were quashed insofar as they proposed confiscation and penalties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisions relating to penalty and confiscation under the Central Excise Rules could be invoked for additional duties of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 in the absence of an express charging provision for penalty.

Analysis: Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 applies the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder only so far as may be in relation to levy and collection of the additional duties, and the statutory language specifically refers to refund and exemption, indicating a restricted incorporation. Penalty and confiscation are distinct from levy and collection and constitute a substantive pecuniary liability requiring clear legislative authority. The reference to the Central Excise machinery does not, by itself, import the penal provisions of the Central Excise Rules into the Additional Duties Act. Article 265 of the Constitution of India requires authority of law for any such burden, and penal liability cannot be created by implication or by broad construction of machinery provisions.

Conclusion: The provisions for penalty and confiscation could not be applied under the Additional Duties Act in the absence of an express provision authorising them.

Final Conclusion: The show cause notices were quashed to the extent they proposed confiscation of the petitioners' property and imposition of penalties under the Central Excise Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal or confiscatory liability cannot be read into a fiscal statute by implication; if the legislature intends to impose penalty, the authority must be clear, specific, and express.

---