Exemption notifications adding new items operate prospectively unless retrospective intent is clearly expressed or implied.

An exemption notification that adds new items to the exempted category operates prospectively unless retrospective intent is clearly expressed or necessarily implied. A circular stating that bars and rods made from ship-breaking scrap would "now" be exempt indicated application from that date forward, not backward. Because the amendment changed the legal position rather than merely clarifying an existing exemption, it could not be treated as retrospective in the absence of express language to that effect. The operative effect was that the exemption did not cover the period before issuance, and the duty challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Notification No. 101/87-C.E. dated 27-3-1987 was merely clarificatory and therefore retrospective, or whether it operated prospectively so as to deny exemption for the period prior to its issuance.

Analysis: The circular issued on 31-3-1987 stated that bars and rods made from ship-breaking scrap would "now" be exempt from excise duty, indicating operation from that point onwards. The amendment introduced by the notification added items that were not earlier included, which supported the view that the notification changed the legal position rather than merely clarifying an existing one. In the absence of any express indication of retrospective effect, the amendment could not be treated as operating backward in time.

Conclusion: The notification was held to be prospective and not retrospective, and the assessee's challenge to the duty demand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification or amendment that introduces new items into the exempted category operates prospectively unless retrospective intent is clearly expressed or necessarily implied.

---