Retrospective penalty limits and composite penalty apportionment bar excise demands, while personal penalties may be reduced for excessiveness.

Penalty and interest provisions cannot be applied to a period before their enactment, so demands under Sections 11AC and 11AB could not be sustained for the relevant earlier period. A composite penalty framed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q also failed because no apportionment was made between the two penal bases. Personal penalties under Rule 209A were justified where the individuals had knowledge of the relevant undervaluation conduct, but the amounts were reduced as excessive on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB could be sustained for a period prior to their introduction, and whether a composite penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q could be upheld without apportionment. (ii) Whether the personal penalties imposed under Rule 209A on the concerned individuals were justified and, if so, whether the quantum required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB could be sustained for a period prior to their introduction, and whether a composite penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q could be upheld without apportionment.

Analysis: The relevant period preceded the introduction of Sections 11AC and 11AB. Those provisions were not part of the statute during the material time, so penalty and interest under them could not be imposed for that period. The order also imposed a joint penalty invoking both Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, but no apportionment was made between the two bases. In that situation, the composite penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty on the manufacturing company and the interest demand were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalties imposed under Rule 209A on the concerned individuals were justified and, if so, whether the quantum required reduction.

Analysis: The individuals were found to have knowledge of the creation of the marketing unit and the resulting lowering of assessable value, attracting the ingredients necessary for penalty under Rule 209A. At the same time, the penalties were considered excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case, warranting moderation.

Conclusion: The personal penalties were upheld in principle but reduced in quantum.

Final Conclusion: The company obtained complete relief from the composite penalty and interest, while the personal penalties survived only at reduced amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Penal and interest provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to a period before their enactment, and a composite penalty lacking clear apportionment between distinct penal provisions cannot be sustained; personal penalty may still be imposed where the statutory ingredients are established, but the quantum remains subject to judicial moderation.

---