Judgment 1. The question of law arising for decision in this case is whether the following notification of the Government of India, No. 2-Salt/47, dated the 28th February, 1947, stating that a refund of duty paid on stocks of salt held on the 1st April, 1947, or in transit on that date will also be admissible subject to the conditions set out in the notification, comes within the ambit of Rule 8 framed by the Central Government in exercise of its rule-making power under Sec.37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act (Act I of 1944): "No. 2-Salt/47 -- By Notification Nos. 1-Customs/47 and 1-Salt-47 of 28-2-1947. Salt imported into or manufactured in British India is with effect from 1-4-1947 exempted from payment of the duty leviable thereon. A refund of duty paid on stocks of salt held on 1-4-1947 or in transit on that date will also be admissible subject to the conditions set out in the following rules." 2. On the same day another notification had been issued by the Central Government which reads as follows: "No. 1-Salt/47- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government is pleased to exempt, with effect from 1-4-1947, salt manufactured in or imported by land into British India from the whole of the duty leviable thereon under Sec.3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944)". Sec.38 of Act I of 1944 is also important. That section reads as follows: "38. Publication of Rules and Notifications. All Rules made and Notifications issued under this Act shall be made and issued by publication in the Official Gazette. All such rules and notifications shall thereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act: Provided that every such rule shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made, before Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more sessions, and if before the expiry of that period, Parliament makes any modification in the rule or directs that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be. 3. 3. In this case the lower appellate Court has held that the notification In question does not fall under the statutory Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and so the plaintiff-appellants are not entitled to get a refund of the amount of duty paid, namely, a sum of Rs. 2127/1/- on the unsold quantity of salt on the 1st of April, 1947. In taking this view the lower appellate Court has followed the decision of the Punjab High Court in Union of India V/s. F. Gian Chand Kasturi Lal, AIR 1954 Punj 159. 4. With great respect we consider that the view expressed by the Punjab High Court in the above mentioned case is not correct. Both the notifications, No. 1-Salt/47 and No. 2-Salt/47, were issued by the Government of India on the same date, that is, on the 28th February, 1947, and they should be read and construed in each others context. In our opinion, the Government of India had power to grant exemption with regard to the quantity of salt imported before the 1st of April, 1947, but left unsold on that date, and this power of exemption is fully within the ambit of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. 5. It is true that the Government of India have not quoted Rule 8 in the second notification, but. as we have already said, the second notification is only an amendment of the first notification no. 1-Salt/47, in which the Government of India have mentioned their powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The learned Government Advocate also referred in this connection to United Provinces V/s. Mt. Atiqa Begum, AIR 1941 FC 16 and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1956 Fat 92, where it was pointed out that retrospective legislation is one of the particular incidents of plenary legislative power. 6. We do not, however, think that in the present case the notification is retrospective in that sense. In our opinion the notification falls clearly within the ambit of the language of Rule 8 of (he Central Excise Rules. 6. We do not, however, think that in the present case the notification is retrospective in that sense. In our opinion the notification falls clearly within the ambit of the language of Rule 8 of (he Central Excise Rules. We, therefore, respectfully differ from the view taken by the Punjab High Court in AIR 1954 Punj 159 and hold that notification No. 2-Salt/47, dated 28th February, 1947, fails within the ambit of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, and the plaintiffs have, therefore, a right to get a refund of the amount of Rs. 2127-1-0 from the Union of India, as the excise duty paid by them. 7. It is conceded by the learned Government Advocate that the plaintiffs are not entitled to realise any interest on the amount claimed. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and order that a decree should be granted to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 2127-1-0 to be recovered from the defendant, the Union of India. Parties will bear their own costs throughout.