https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85446 The Tribunal rejected the Department's plea for High Court reference, affirming the validity of the Delhi High Court's decision on confiscation and penalty for evasion of Additional Duty of Excise. It concluded that the amendments to the Act were substantive, not retrospective, indicating clarity in interpreting the law pre-amendment. The Tribunal emphasized that the Delhi High Court's ruling remained applicable, and there was no need for a High Court reference as the amendments did not introduce ambiguity but rather substantive changes. en-us Tue, 14 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:10:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85446 The Tribunal rejected the Department's plea for High Court reference, affirming the validity of the Delhi High Court's decision on confiscation and penalty for evasion of Additional Duty of Excise. It concluded that the amendments to the Act were substantive, not retrospective, indicating clarity in interpreting the law pre-amendment. The Tribunal emphasized that the Delhi High Court's ruling remained applicable, and there was no need for a High Court reference as the amendments did not introduce ambiguity but rather substantive changes. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85446