Retrospective refund notifications require express wording; a higher refund rate cannot be applied to earlier claims without it.

An amended refund notification increasing the refund rate from 2% to 10% operates prospectively unless the amendment expressly provides retrospective effect. A prior view that another amendment to the same notification had been treated as retrospective did not justify retrospectivity for the rate-enhancing amendment. An executive circular cannot confer retrospective operation on a notification. The 10% refund rate was therefore unavailable for claims arising before the amendment date, and the Revenue's position prevailed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended refund notification enhancing the refund rate from 2% to 10% could be applied retrospectively to claims arising before the amendment.

Analysis: The refund regime under Notification No. 41/2007-ST originally permitted refund at 2% of FOB value, and Notification No. 33/2008-ST enhanced it to 10% with effect from 07.12.2008. The earlier appellate view that another amendment to the same notification had been treated as retrospective could not justify giving retrospective effect to the rate-enhancing amendment. In the absence of an express stipulation making the amendment retrospective, an amended notification operates only prospectively. A circular or executive instruction cannot confer retrospective operation on a notification.

Conclusion: The amended refund rate of 10% was not available retrospectively, and the Revenue's appeal was rightly allowed.

---