Retrospective excise amendments remain subject to limitation, making a delayed demand time-barred and unsustainable.

A central excise demand relating to 1975 could not be sustained where the show cause notice was issued in 1983, because the retrospective amendment to Rules 9 and 49 did not expressly override the limitation period in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The governing principle was that retrospective operation of amended rules remains subject to statutory limitation unless a clear non obstante clause or express exclusion is provided. On that basis, the demand was held time-barred and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand of central excise duty for a period in 1975 could be sustained when the show cause notice was issued in 1983, in view of the retrospective amendment to Rules 9 and 49 by Notification No. 20/82-C.E. and the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The demand arose long after the relevant period. The retrospective amendment to Rules 9 and 49 did not contain any express provision overriding the limitation under Section 11A. The governing principle applied was that, absent a specific non obstante clause or express exclusion, retrospective operation of the amended rules remains subject to the statutory period of limitation. The earlier Supreme Court ruling relied upon had already held that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982, insofar as it gave retrospective effect to the amendment, was subject to Section 11A, and that excise authorities could not ignore the limitation period on the theory of accrued cause of action.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the order-in-appeal was set aside.

---