Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendment to Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 introduced by Notification No. 4/92-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1-3-1992, which carved out an exception for clearances to Free Trade Zone units and hundred per cent Export Oriented Units, was clarificatory and retrospective in operation or was only prospective.
Analysis: The amendment created a new exception to the pre-existing bar on Modvat credit where final products were exempt or chargeable to nil duty. The change was treated as a substantive modification of the legal position rather than a mere clarification. In the absence of any express indication of retrospectivity, and in light of the express stipulation that the amended rules would come into force on publication in the Official Gazette, the amendment could not be applied to periods prior to its commencement.
Conclusion: The amendment was held to be prospective only and not retrospective; the appellant was not entitled to claim the benefit for the earlier period.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, and the appeal failed because the amended Rule 57C operated only from 1-3-1992 onward.
Ratio Decidendi: A substantive fiscal amendment operates prospectively unless the statute or notification clearly provides for retrospective operation.