Retrospective application of excise penalty rules rejected; factory goods were treated as accounted for, so full pre-deposit was refused.

Penalty and confiscation under the Central Excise Rules, 2001 could not be applied to a contravention alleged to have occurred in February 2001, before those rules came into force; the relevant conduct remained governed by the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so the impugned invocation was not sustained. Where the goods had remained in the factory and were otherwise satisfactorily accounted for, a mere alleged non-entry in records did not justify treating the matter as failure to account for the goods, and full pre-deposit of penalty could not be insisted upon. The order was therefore set aside and the appeals were to be heard on merits without pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation and penalty provisions invoked under the Central Excise Rules, 2001 could be insisted upon for a contravention alleged to have occurred before those rules came into force; (ii) whether full pre-deposit of penalty could be insisted upon when the goods remained in the factory and the alleged non-entry in records did not amount to failure to account for the goods.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation and penalty provisions invoked under the Central Excise Rules, 2001 could be insisted upon for a contravention alleged to have occurred before those rules came into force.

Analysis: The alleged contravention occurred in February 2001, before the Central Excise Rules, 2001 were promulgated. The relevant conduct was therefore governed by the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they then stood. The provisions corresponding to confiscation and penalty were not treated as prima facie applicable in the manner adopted in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The invocation of the 2001 Rules for the alleged pre-promulgation contravention was not sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether full pre-deposit of penalty could be insisted upon when the goods remained in the factory and the alleged non-entry in records did not amount to failure to account for the goods.

Analysis: The goods were not removed from the factory, and the settled position noted in the order was that the relevant clause applies only when goods are actually removed. The expression "account for" was distinguished from merely making an entry in the account, and the Tribunal treated the appellant as having sufficiently explained the goods for the purpose of the provision. On that basis, insisting upon full deposit was considered unwarranted.

Conclusion: Full pre-deposit could not be insisted upon, and the assessee was entitled to have the appeals heard without such deposit.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were directed to be heard and decided on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty or confiscation provision cannot be applied to conduct occurring before the relevant rules came into force, and where goods are not removed and are otherwise satisfactorily accounted for, insistence on full pre-deposit is not justified.

---