Retrospective operation of amended credit rule denied where proviso expanded benefits and added a new input-use condition.

A proviso inserted in Rule 57F(4) by Notification No. 11/95-C.E. was considered on its temporal operation. The proviso expanded the scope of credit utilisation and added a further condition concerning receipt and use of inputs. Such an amendment is retrospective only if it merely clarifies a benefit already available under the existing rule; prior decisions that did not address retrospective effect were not determinative. The amendment was therefore treated as not retrospective, and the reference was answered against retrospective application of the proviso.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso inserted in Rule 57F(4) by Notification No. 11/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995 was retrospective in nature.

Analysis: The proviso widened the scope of utilisation of credit and introduced a further condition relating to the receipt and use of inputs. An amendment of this kind is retrospective only if it merely clarifies a benefit already available under the existing provision. The earlier decisions relied upon did not address the question of retrospective operation of the amendment and were therefore not determinative of the issue.

Conclusion: The amendment was held not to be retrospective.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against retrospective application of the proviso, and the matter was sent back for further orders in accordance with that answer.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso that expands the scope of a statutory benefit and adds a new condition is not retrospective unless it is merely clarificatory of a benefit already available under the pre-existing provision.

---