https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42329 Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982 retrospectively validated the altered excise concession under Notification No. 99 of 1980, but it did not contain a non obstante clause or any express exclusion of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The general limitation for short-levy demands therefore continued to apply, so recovery proceedings had to be initiated within the prescribed six-month period. Retrospective effect alone did not displace that statutory limitation, and the demand raised beyond time was invalid. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:18:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42329 Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982 retrospectively validated the altered excise concession under Notification No. 99 of 1980, but it did not contain a non obstante clause or any express exclusion of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The general limitation for short-levy demands therefore continued to apply, so recovery proceedings had to be initiated within the prescribed six-month period. Retrospective effect alone did not displace that statutory limitation, and the demand raised beyond time was invalid. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42329