Retrospective customs notification did not wipe out accrued liability under the earlier installation requirement.

Notification No. 52/2003-Customs governed the import/procurement when the liability arose, requiring capital goods to be installed or otherwise used within one year, with extension up to five years. The petitioner had not obtained the necessary extension and had already incurred liability under that regime. Notification No. 34/2015-Customs, which later relaxed the installation requirement, contained no clear indication that it was intended to retrospectively extinguish antecedent defaults or liabilities already accrued. A later amendment does not erase vested or accrued liability unless retrospective operation is expressed clearly. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Notification No. 34/2015-Customs dated 25-5-2015, which relaxed the installation requirement for capital goods, operated retrospectively so as to extinguish liability that had already accrued under Notification No. 52/2003-Customs dated 31-3-2003.

Analysis: The transaction was governed by Notification No. 52/2003-Customs when the relevant permission was granted and when the import/procurement liability arose. Under that notification, capital goods were required to be installed or otherwise used within the unit within one year, subject to extension up to five years. The petitioner had not obtained such extension and had already incurred liability. Although Notification No. 34/2015-Customs later amended the regime and used substitutive language, there was nothing in it to indicate that antecedent defaults or liabilities already accrued under the earlier notification were being wiped out. A later amendment does not destroy accrued liability or vested rights unless the instrument clearly provides for such retrospective operation.

Conclusion: The later notification was not retrospective in a manner that erased the petitioner's pre-existing liability, and the challenge to the order failed.

---