https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328647 An amendment that made offences under the Central Excise Act cognizable and non-bailable was held to operate prospectively because it affected the accused's existing bail-related right and no clear retrospective intention was shown; the respondent therefore remained governed by the pre-amendment position for the alleged offence. On cancellation, the Court found no infirmity in the bail order under Section 439(2) CrPC, since bail could still be granted on proper grounds under Section 437 CrPC and the Sessions Court had exercised discretion within the legal framework. The challenge to the bail order was rejected and the respondent's release on bail was allowed to stand. en-us Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328647 An amendment that made offences under the Central Excise Act cognizable and non-bailable was held to operate prospectively because it affected the accused's existing bail-related right and no clear retrospective intention was shown; the respondent therefore remained governed by the pre-amendment position for the alleged offence. On cancellation, the Court found no infirmity in the bail order under Section 439(2) CrPC, since bail could still be granted on proper grounds under Section 437 CrPC and the Sessions Court had exercised discretion within the legal framework. The challenge to the bail order was rejected and the respondent's release on bail was allowed to stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328647