https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277843 Retrospective fiscal legislation was upheld where Section 7(2) of the Finance Act, 1951 merely applied increased excise rates backward and did not change the essential character of the levy; objections based on completed transactions, unreasonableness, and Article 19 were rejected. However, collection still required authority of law, and the demand for differential excise duty on goods already cleared from the warehouse was unsupported by the governing rules or the Board's instruction. The executive demand was therefore contrary to Article 265 and was quashed under Article 226, while the retrospective provision itself remained valid. en-us Fri, 23 Nov 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277843 Retrospective fiscal legislation was upheld where Section 7(2) of the Finance Act, 1951 merely applied increased excise rates backward and did not change the essential character of the levy; objections based on completed transactions, unreasonableness, and Article 19 were rejected. However, collection still required authority of law, and the demand for differential excise duty on goods already cleared from the warehouse was unsupported by the governing rules or the Board's instruction. The executive demand was therefore contrary to Article 265 and was quashed under Article 226, while the retrospective provision itself remained valid. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Nov 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277843