Retrospective penalty barred where penal provision was not in force; separate excise penalty reduced as excessive.

A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to acts completed before its commencement, so Section 11AC penalty was held inapplicable for the earlier period and was set aside. The duty demand based on clandestine removal was sustained on the basis of concurrent findings and admissions. The separate penalty under Rule 173Q was maintained in principle but reduced because of the surrounding circumstances, including prior deposit and the assessee's financial position, as the original quantum was considered excessive. The result was only partial relief to the assessee, with duty confirmed, Section 11AC penalty annulled, and Rule 173Q penalty substantially moderated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be imposed for a period when that provision was not yet in force; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be imposed for a period when that provision was not yet in force.

Analysis: The duty demand for clandestine removal based on shortage of finished goods and raw material was supported by concurrent findings and admissions made by the factory officials, and that part was not assailed. However, the penal provision under Section 11AC could not be applied to a past act committed before the provision came into existence. A penal statute cannot be invoked retrospectively in the absence of legislative authority.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was set aside and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules required reduction.

Analysis: The levy under Rule 173Q was sustained in principle, but the Tribunal took note of the surrounding circumstances, including the amount already deposited before the show cause notice and the financial position of the assessee. In view of these considerations, the penalty was considered excessive and warranting interference to a limited extent.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was reduced to Rs. 20,000 and this issue was partly decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained, the statutory penalty under Section 11AC was annulled, and the separate penalty under Rule 173Q was substantially reduced, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to acts completed before its commencement, and a penalty may be moderated where the circumstances show that the original quantum is excessive.

---