Retrospective amendment in customs notifications applied to dispute, leaving no prima facie case for stay.

The dispute concerned whether Notification No. 29/2004-Cus. amending Notifications Nos. 28/97-Cus. and 29/97-Cus. had to be applied retrospectively. The analysis treated the 1997 notifications as the governing framework in light of the earlier remand and applied the principle that substitution of words in a notification may have retrospective operation where the context requires it. On that basis, the amendment was read as retrospective, the order under challenge did not disclose an apparent error, and no prima facie case for stay was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment made by Notification No. 29/2004-Cus. dated 28.01.2004 to Notifications Nos. 28/97-Cus. and 29/97-Cus. dated 01.04.1997 had to be applied retrospectively for deciding the dispute and whether a prima facie case was made out for stay of the order under challenge.

Analysis: The dispute had to be examined with reference to the 1997 notifications, as directed in the earlier remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had treated the amendment introduced in 2004 as retrospective, relying on the principle that a substitution of words in a notification can operate retrospectively where the context so requires. On that basis, and in light of the earlier direction of remand, the order under challenge did not disclose an apparent error. Since the notifications were to be read as having retrospective effect, no prima facie case for stay was shown.

Conclusion: The amendment was required to be applied retrospectively, and the request for stay was not justified.

---