MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J. - The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned notification has since been withdrawn with effect from July 1, 1999 and to that extent the petition has fructified. He, however, points of that one of the prayer made by the petitioner is for the refund of duty already paid.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the notification, whereby the duty was withdrawn is applicable perspectively.
3. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has no force. The notification by its words has been made operative from July, 1999 and is in accordance with Section 1 2-A of the Central Excise Act, 1 944. The law is well-settled that right of a person cannot be taken away by the subordinate legislation but beneficial retrospective operation is permissible. See Army Welfare v.
Federal Government, etc. (1992 SCM R 1652). There is also merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once it is found that tax or duty has been recovered without any legal backing, the person concerned is entitled to its refund.
4. This petition is disposed of with the observations that if any duty has been paid on this account from July, 1999, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.