Retrospective excise notification could not create extra duty for the earlier exempt period, but later liability was governed separately.

Notification No. 175/86-C.E. governed the exemption position from 1-3-1986, so no additional duty could be fastened for 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986 on the basis of the later retrospective Notification No. 213/86-C.E. The retrospective notification could not create an extra demand for a period when the assessee was already covered by the earlier exemption. For 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986, however, duty liability had to be determined under Notification No. 213/86-C.E., because the earlier notification stood displaced for that later period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective issue of Notification No. 213/86-C.E. could sustain an additional duty demand for the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986, and how duty liability was to be determined for 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986.

Analysis: Notification No. 175/86-C.E. provided the operative exemption structure from 1-3-1986, and for the earlier period the assessee remained entitled to that notification's benefit. The later Notification No. 213/86-C.E., though given retrospective effect, could not be used to fasten extra duty for a period when the assessee was rightly governed by Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The duty position for the period after 25-3-1986 had, however, to be examined under Notification No. 213/86-C.E., because the earlier notification stood displaced for that later period.

Conclusion: No extra demand was sustainable for 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986, while duty liability for 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986 had to be determined under Notification No. 213/86-C.E.

---