Strict construction of exemption notifications bars retrospective benefit of a later amendment expanding permissible use.

Exemption notifications must be applied according to their plain terms at the time of import. Notification No. 150/81-Cus. required manufactured articles to be sold to industrial units for use, with payment through banks; the later amendment in Notification No. 275/83-Cus. added self-use as an additional mode, but this expansion was not treated as a mere clarification or correction of an obvious omission. In the absence of clear language making the change retrospective, the amended benefit did not extend to earlier imports, and the refund claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment made by Notification No. 275/83-Cus. dated 28-9-1983, which permitted utilisation of the manufactured articles by the manufacturer himself, could be treated as clarificatory and applied retrospectively to imports made when Notification No. 150/81-Cus. dated 25-5-1981 was in force.

Analysis: The exemption available under Notification No. 150/81-Cus. had to be construed according to its plain terms. On the date of import, the notification required the manufactured articles to be sold to industrial units for their use and payment to be received through banks. The later amendment introduced a new alternative of self-use, but there was no basis to treat that addition as merely correcting an obvious error or as supplying words that were always intended to be there. In the absence of such a clear indication, the amendment could not be given retrospective effect. The earlier tribunal order, rendered before the later Supreme Court guidance on strict construction of exemption notifications and the non-retrospective character of such amendments, did not govern the issue.

Conclusion: The benefit of the amended notification was not available to the imports made prior to the amendment, and the claim for refund failed.

Final Conclusion: Exemption notifications are to be applied on their own terms as they stood at the time of import, and a later amendment enlarging the scope of benefit does not operate retrospectively unless clearly so provided.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be strictly construed, and a later amendment expanding the scope of exemption is not retrospective unless the statute or notification clearly makes it so.

---