Clarificatory tax notification held not retrospective, defeating refund claim based on prior-period differential duty

An amending notification dated 27-11-1997 was treated as clarificatory and as continuing the earlier compounded levy notification, rather than as operating retrospectively. Differential duty had been paid under the earlier scheme, and the Board's clarification supported the view that the amendment only explained the existing notification's scope and wording. On that basis, the prior-period duty demand was not invalidated, and the refund claim founded on alleged retrospective effect was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was maintainable on the ground that the amending notification dated 27-11-97 could not operate retrospectively.

Analysis: The differential duty had been paid pursuant to the earlier notification governing the compounded levy scheme. The later notification was treated as a clarification of the scope and wording of the earlier notification, and the Board's clarification indicated that the amending notification was in continuation of the earlier one. In that view, the demand for differential duty for the prior period was not vitiated, and the refund claim based on alleged retrospectivity was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly rejected and the plea of impermissible retrospective operation failed.

---