Clarificatory amendment to excise credit rule can operate retrospectively when it only makes explicit an existing position.

Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as clarificatory because it merely made explicit the procedure for credit where duty on inputs was paid after clearance, a situation already implicit in the scheme. On that basis, the amendment dated 15 April 1987 was regarded as having retrospective effect despite the absence of an express retrospective clause. The department's request for reference to the High Court failed because the point raised did not give rise to a referable question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 dated 15-4-1987 could be treated as retrospective so as to permit credit on duty paid after clearance of inputs, and whether a question on that point warranted reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The amendment was held to be clarificatory. The rule as it stood before amendment was silent on the precise situation where duty was paid after clearance of the inputs, whereas the amendment merely made explicit the procedure and position already implicit in the scheme. A clarificatory amendment that does not materially alter the existing legal position may operate retrospectively, and the absence of an express retrospective clause was not decisive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The amendment was treated as retrospective in effect, and the proposed question did not merit reference to the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The department's application for reference failed because the amendment was regarded as clarificatory and no referable question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory amendment that merely makes explicit an existing legal position may operate retrospectively even without an express retrospective clause.

---