https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329825 The Andhra Pradesh HC held that an Explanation inserted to Section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act could not be applied retrospectively because it was not shown to be declaratory or curative, and the settlement remedy was a substantive right governed by the law in force when proceedings could have been initiated. It further held that ambiguity in the pre-amendment text had to be resolved in favour of the assessee, so the Settlement Commission could not reject the third settlement application solely on the later Explanation. Delay in filing the writ petition was not fatal because no intervening prejudice or third-party rights were shown, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329825 The Andhra Pradesh HC held that an Explanation inserted to Section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act could not be applied retrospectively because it was not shown to be declaratory or curative, and the settlement remedy was a substantive right governed by the law in force when proceedings could have been initiated. It further held that ambiguity in the pre-amendment text had to be resolved in favour of the assessee, so the Settlement Commission could not reject the third settlement application solely on the later Explanation. Delay in filing the writ petition was not fatal because no intervening prejudice or third-party rights were shown, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329825