https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45126 Retrospective enhancement of excise duty was treated as a valid duty of excise because the levy remained one on goods manufactured or produced in India, and its retrospective operation did not alter its constitutional character. The Court further held that retrospectivity in a taxing statute, by itself, did not violate Articles 19(1)(f), 19(5), 31(1), 31(2) or 265, since taxation is a sovereign function and the inability to pass on the burden in a particular case does not make the levy unreasonable. Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as a residuary recovery provision wide enough to support collection of the differential duty arising from the enhanced rate. en-us Mon, 11 Dec 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45126 Retrospective enhancement of excise duty was treated as a valid duty of excise because the levy remained one on goods manufactured or produced in India, and its retrospective operation did not alter its constitutional character. The Court further held that retrospectivity in a taxing statute, by itself, did not violate Articles 19(1)(f), 19(5), 31(1), 31(2) or 265, since taxation is a sovereign function and the inability to pass on the burden in a particular case does not make the levy unreasonable. Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as a residuary recovery provision wide enough to support collection of the differential duty arising from the enhanced rate. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Dec 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45126