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 Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff, inserted with effect from 1-3-1988, was clarificatory and retrospective or a new provision operating prospectively, and whether conversions from one primary form of plastic to another amounted to manufacture before that date.
Analysis: Note 6, as amended, opened with a non obstante clause overriding Note 3. The earlier and amended notes dealt with different positions: Note 3 limited the relevant headings to goods produced by chemical synthesis, while the amended Note 6 declared conversion from one primary form to another to be manufacture. Since the processes in question were mechanical conversions and not chemical synthesis, the amendment created a substantive change rather than merely explaining an existing ambiguity. A new provision does not operate retrospectively unless such intent is expressed or clearly implied.
Conclusion: The amendment to Chapter Note 6 was not clarificatory and operated only prospectively. The issue was answered in favour of the assessees.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment that creates a new substantive liability, especially when it overrides an earlier contrary provision by a non obstante clause, is prospective unless retrospective intent is expressly stated or necessarily implied.