https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41843 A retrospective Explanation to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules was upheld as constitutionally valid and within legislative competence, because retrospective tax legislation may cure ambiguity or remove an infirmity where the Legislature is competent to enact it. Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 was treated as a valid validating provision with retrospective effect. No conflict was found between the Explanation and the definition of "place of removal" in Section 4(4)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as the provisions operate in different fields and can be harmoniously construed. The challenge to the excise amendment therefore failed and the validation remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:52:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41843 A retrospective Explanation to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules was upheld as constitutionally valid and within legislative competence, because retrospective tax legislation may cure ambiguity or remove an infirmity where the Legislature is competent to enact it. Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 was treated as a valid validating provision with retrospective effect. No conflict was found between the Explanation and the definition of "place of removal" in Section 4(4)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as the provisions operate in different fields and can be harmoniously construed. The challenge to the excise amendment therefore failed and the validation remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41843