Retrospective exemption for controlled shirting did not extend to the amended fabric definition for the disputed period.

Exemption under Notification No. 251/82 depended on whether the goods fell within the then-applicable definition of controlled shirting under the Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 and related Textile Commissioner notifications. The original definition required cloth containing not less than 75% cotton by weight, while the later amendment expanded coverage to a 52% cotton and 48% polyester blend. The commentary explains that although the amending notification was issued with retrospective wording for part of its contents, that retrospectivity applied only to the cost component and not to the amended definition. On that basis, the revised definition did not cover the February and March 1984 period, so the exemption was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended definition of controlled shirting in Notification No. CER/1/84/3 could be applied retrospectively to grant exemption under Notification No. 251/82 for the period February and March 1984.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 251/82 depended on the description of controlled shirting as defined under the Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 and the relevant Textile Commissioner notifications. The original definition under Notification No. CER/1/68 required cloth containing not less than 75% cotton by weight. The later amendment in Notification No. CER/1/84/3 expanded the definition to include cloth with 52% cotton and 48% polyester by weight. The amendment was issued on 25 April 1984. Although the notification stated a retrospective date for part of its contents, the retrospective operation was held to apply only to the cost component and not to the amended definition of controlled shirting.

Conclusion: The amended definition did not operate retrospectively for the relevant blend during February and March 1984. The exemption was therefore unavailable to the appellant.

---