Retrospective amendment cannot override a binding Supreme Court ruling on a Section 37B circular and classification position.

A retrospective amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was confined to duty-demand mechanics for short-levy or non-levy cases and did not displace a binding Supreme Court ruling on the validity and effect of a Section 37B circular. The Tribunal accepted the classification position already upheld, holding that the Revenue could not rely on the amendment to unsettle that conclusion. The challenged order in favour of the assessee was left undisturbed and the Revenue's appeal was rejected on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 displaced the binding effect of the Supreme Court's ruling on the validity and operation of a Section 37B circular/classification order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the amended Section 11A dealt only with demands of duty short-levied or not levied on account of prior approval, acceptance, or assessment. It did not override the Supreme Court's decision rendered on the specific question of the validity of a Section 37B circular. The Tribunal therefore accepted the classification position already upheld and found the Revenue's reliance on the retrospective amendment insufficient to disturb that conclusion.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment did not affect the Supreme Court's ruling on the Section 37B circular, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenged order in favour of the assessee was left undisturbed and the Revenue's appeal stood rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective amendment confined to duty-demand mechanics cannot be used to override a binding Supreme Court ruling on the validity and effect of a Section 37B circular.

---