Chapter Note amendment temporal effect referred to Larger Bench after divergence on whether it was clarificatory or prospective.

The dispute concerned whether the amendment to Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act was clarificatory or prospective in operation. One view treated the temporal effect of the amendment as requiring a Larger Bench reference, while the other view considered the point covered by earlier Tribunal rulings and saw no need for reference. Because of the difference of opinion, the matter was directed to the President for reference to a Larger Bench on the framed question, and the appeal was not finally decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was clarificatory or prospective in operation, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits or referred to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The Members differed on the effect of the amendment to Chapter Note 6. One view treated the amendment as requiring reference to a Larger Bench because the controversy raised a question of its temporal operation and related reliefs had not been finally addressed. The other view held that the issue stood covered by earlier Tribunal decisions and that the appeal could be rejected without reference. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was directed to be placed before the President for reference to a Larger Bench on the framed question.

Conclusion: The appeal was not finally decided on merits and was referred to a Larger Bench.

---