Prospective amendment and Modvat credit principles limit refund relief and require substantial pre-deposit where final product is exempt.

The amended explanation to Notification No. 21/2004, which expressly included countervailing duty, was treated as prospective because the original wording did not include that levy and was not open to two interpretations. The later amendment therefore did not operate as a mere clarification. On the interim refund and credit question, exemption of the final product from central excise duty meant prima facie entitlement to Modvat credit of countervailing duty was not established. The claim was considered arguable, but not strong enough to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit, and substantial pre-deposit was required before the appeal could proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the amended explanation to Notification No. 21/2004, which specifically included countervailing duty, operated retrospectively; (ii) whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for entitlement to Modvat credit or refund in view of the exemption available to the final product.

Issue (i): whether the amended explanation to Notification No. 21/2004, which specifically included countervailing duty, operated retrospectively.

Analysis: The explanation in the original notification expressly referred to specified duties of customs and did not include countervailing duty. The later amendment effective from 1-3-2007 enlarged the scope of the rebate provision by including countervailing duty. Since the earlier wording was not capable of two interpretations, the amendment could not be treated as merely clarificatory or as reflecting an earlier legislative intent.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be prospective and not retrospective.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for entitlement to Modvat credit or refund in view of the exemption available to the final product.

Analysis: The reliance placed on the earlier decision concerning refund or credit was found not fully applicable on the facts because the appellant's final product was exempt from central excise duty. In that situation, prima facie entitlement to Modvat credit of the countervailing duty was not established, and the claim was treated as arguable and contentious at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The appellant was held not to have established a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit.

Final Conclusion: The interim relief was declined to the extent of full waiver, and the appellant was directed to make a substantial pre-deposit of the confirmed demand before the appeal could proceed.

---