Exemption notification amendment with enlarged relief held prospective only; refund for the earlier period was denied.

An amendment to an exemption notification that enlarges the relief available under an existing proviso is substantive, not merely clarificatory, where it deems earlier duty payment at a concessional rate and thereby improves the benefit structure. In the absence of express retrospective language, such an Explanation operates only from its date of introduction. Applied here, the later notification did not govern the prior period, so refund relief for that period was unavailable and the claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Explanation inserted by Notification No. 240/79-C.E. dated 7-8-1979 to proviso (v) of Notification No. 36/79-C.E. dated 1-3-1979 was clarificatory and retrospective, or substantive and prospective.

Analysis: The Explanation enlarged the relief available under proviso (v) by deeming the duty already paid on the lower-valued snuff used in the manufacture of higher-valued snuff to be at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per kg. Before the Explanation, the benefit under proviso (v) was lower. Since the Explanation conferred greater relief and did not merely remove ambiguity, it could not be treated as a mere clarification. A provision that substantially alters the benefit structure operates only from its date of introduction unless expressly made retrospective.

Conclusion: The Explanation in Notification No. 240/79-C.E. operated prospectively and not retrospectively; the claim for refund for the prior period failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the refund was confined to the period after the later notification came into force.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment to an exemption notification that enlarges the substantive relief available is not merely clarificatory and, absent express retrospectivity, operates only prospectively.

---