Vide Notification No. 8/2007 (N.T.) dated 01.03.2007, Rule 26 was amended and provision was put into penalize abatement of taking of inadmissible cenvat credit by looking into making documents like bills, transport documents etc. The Rule reads as, Rule 26(2): Anyone, who issues – (i) an excise duty invoice without receiving the goods specified therein or abets for making such invoice or (ii) every other document or abets for making such document, based on that the user of stated invoice or document will probably take or has had any ineligible benefit underneath the Act or even the rules made there under like declaring of CENVAT credit underneath the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, will be prone to a problem not exceeding the quantity of such benefit or 5000 rupees, whichever is bigger. The objective of this paper to look at if the rule does apply retrospectively and may yesteryear offences be punished through either retrospective operation of those rules or on argument that such offences were already punishable under Rule 25 from the central Excise Rules, 2002. The Notification No. 8/2007 (N.T.) dated 01.03.2007 states that, After sub rule (1), the next sub rule will be placed:- The word -place- continues to be defined in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary as -to place or put into another thing-, -introducing-. Oxford Dictionary also defines the word as -put something into another thing-. Only reading through from the concept of the word -place- claim that this can be a new offence has been produced also it can’t be applied retrospectively. The letter from the Joint Secretary (TRU) , explaining the alterations states that, in clause 30(f) -A brand new sub rule (2) has additionally been placed to maintain penal action from the person-.- It’s observed that this can be a new clause to -offer- penal action. It’s obvious out of this letter too that it’s a new rule, which can’t be applied retrospectively. It will be observed that the rule offers penalty, a brand new burden on subjects. Each time a new burden is enforced around the subjects, without improving the sooner clauses, it’s presumed the new burdens will operate retrospectively. While using this principle of interpretation of statute the tribunal locked in Cameo corporation [2008 (11) STR 161], -It’s the consistent look at this Tribunal, in which a new group of services are introduced for levy and services information tax without improving the phrase a pre-existing group of service where a given service responding to the requirements from the cool product is searched for to become incorporated through the Revenue for that prior period, there might be no levy and services information tax according from the given service within the pre-existing category. It has been created abundantly obvious in many quantity of choices of the Bench also. Within the result, the need for duty around the gross amount collected through the assessee as consideration for which the Revenue views as -Business Auxiliary Service- is placed aside.- Cellular this it’s obvious the rules can’t be applied retrospectively. Further, as Rule 25 is not amended, it can’t be contended that such offences were already a part of Rule 25 from the Central Excise Rules. It will be observed that penal laws which produces offences or which lead to growing penalties for existing offences are only prospective by reason from the Constitutional restriction enforced by Article 20 from the Metabolic rate . In Pyare Lal Sharma v. MD, J&K Industries Ltd. , the Top Court held that unauthorized absence as ground for termination is applicable only following the amendment making such ground. Unsanctioned absence just before the date of amendment can’t be considered for termination. It’s further posted that Rule 26 and it is changes are assigned legislation. Within the area of subordinate legislation, the courts took a regular view that although a legislature may enact laws and regulations with retrospective effect, a delegate cannot exercise an identical energy and provides retrospectivity towards the Rules produced by it unless of course parents statute provides it with a energy to do this either specifically or by necessary implication. Cellular this this author is of the perception that Rule 26(2) is prospective functioning and can’t be relevant to past transactions.