Prospective amendment to exemption notification cannot deny pre-amendment import benefits already available under the prior regime.

An amendment to an exemption or concessional notification operates prospectively unless expressly made retrospective, so it cannot be used to deny benefits for imports assessed before the amendment date. For pre-17.07.2015 imports, entitlement to Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. had already been accepted on the governing precedent and on the Tribunal's own earlier decision on similar facts, and no material was shown to displace those findings. The later Notification No. 34/2015-C.E. therefore did not affect the disputed imports, and the revenue challenge failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. for the imports in question before the amendment dated 17.07.2015; (ii) whether the amendment introduced by Notification No. 34/2015-C.E. operated prospectively so as to affect the disputed imports.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. for the imports in question before the amendment dated 17.07.2015.

Analysis: The disputed imports were assessed for a period prior to 17.07.2015. The earlier appellate orders had already accepted the respondent's entitlement to the notification benefit, relying on the governing precedent and the Tribunal's own decision in the respondent's case on similar facts. No material was shown in the revenue appeals to dislodge those factual or legal findings.

Conclusion: The respondent was eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. for the relevant pre-amendment imports.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment introduced by Notification No. 34/2015-C.E. operated prospectively so as to affect the disputed imports.

Analysis: The amendment dated 17.07.2015 had no bearing on the assessment of imports made before that date. The dispute was confined to an earlier period, and the later amendment could not be applied to deny the benefit already available under the prior notification regime.

Conclusion: The amendment was prospective and did not affect the disputed imports.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeals failed on merits, and the entitlement to the notification benefit for the pre-amendment imports stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment to an exemption or concessional notification operates prospectively unless expressly made retrospective and cannot be used to deny benefits for imports assessed for an earlier period.

---