Vide Notification No. 8/2007 (N.T.) dated 01.03.2007, Rule 26 was amended and provision was added to penalize abatement of taking of inadmissible cenvat credit by making documents like invoices, transport documents etc. The Rule reads as, Rule 26(2): Any person, who issues – (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document or abets in making such document, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made there under like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. The purpose of this paper to examine whether the rule can be applied retrospectively and can the past offences be penalized either through retrospective operation of these rules or on argument that such offences were already punishable under Rule 25 of the central Excise Rules, 2002. The Notification No. 8/2007 (N.T.) dated 01.03.2007 says that, After sub rule (1), the following sub rule shall be inserted:- The term -insert- has been defined in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary as -to put or place into something else-, -to introduce-. Oxford Dictionary also defines the term as -put something into something else-. A mere reading of the meaning of the term -insert- suggest that this is a new offence is being created and it cannot be applied retrospectively. The letter of the Joint Secretary (TRU) , explaining the changes states that, in clause 30(f) -A new sub rule (2) has also been inserted to provide for penal action against the person-.- It is seen that this is a new clause to -provide for- penal action. It is clear from this letter too that it is a new rule, which cannot be applied retrospectively. It is to be seen that the rule provides for penalty, a new burden on subjects. Whenever a new burden is imposed on the subjects, without amending the earlier clauses, it is presumed that the new burdens will operate retrospectively. While applying this principle of interpretation of statute the tribunal held in Cameo corporation [2008 (11) STR 161], -It is the consistent view of this Tribunal, where a new category of service is introduced for levy of service tax without amending the definition of a pre-existing category of service in which a given service answering the requisites of the new service is sought to be included by the Revenue for the prior period, there can be no levy of service tax in respect of the given service in the pre-existing category. This position has been made abundantly clear in umpteen number of decisions of this Bench also. In the result, the demand of duty on the gross amount collected by the assessee as consideration for what the Revenue considers as -Business Auxiliary Service- is set aside.- In view of this it is clear that the rules cannot be applied retrospectively. Further, as Rule 25 has not been amended, it cannot be argued that such offences were already part of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. It is to be seen that penal statutes which creates offences or which have the effect of increasing penalties for existing offences will only be prospective by reason of the Constitutional restriction imposed by Article 20 of the Constitution . In Pyare Lal Sharma v. MD, J&K Industries Ltd. , the Supreme Court held that unauthorized absence as ground for termination applies only after the amendment making such ground. Unauthorised absence prior to the date of amendment cannot be considered for termination. It is further submitted that Rule 26 and its amendments are delegated legislation. In the field of subordinate legislation, the courts have taken a consistent view that while a legislature may enact laws with retrospective effect, a delegate cannot exercise a similar power and gives retrospectivity to the Rules made by it unless the parent statute gives it a power to do so either expressly or by necessary implication. In view of this this author is of the opinion that Rule 26(2) is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to past transactions.