Clarificatory excise rule amendment governed post-amendment credit, so denial under the earlier position was not sustained.

Rule 57E was treated as a procedural provision, and its 15-4-1987 amendment was regarded as clarificatory rather than substantive. On that basis, the amended position applied to credit taken after the amendment date, so credit on duty-paid inputs could not be denied merely by relying on the pre-amendment rule. The manufacturer was therefore held entitled to the certificate sought, and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 57E, as it stood prior to amendment on 15-4-1987, permitted denial or variation of credit on duty-paid inputs where the credit was taken after that date.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench view that Rule 57E was procedural in nature and that the amendment was clarificatory, intended to explain the procedure for adjustment and recovery. On that basis, the amended position governed situations where the credit was taken after 15-4-1987. As the credit in question was taken only after that date, it could not be denied merely because of the earlier position under the unamended rule.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; the manufacturer was held entitled to the certificate sought.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the entitlement to credit under Rule 57E was upheld on the basis that the amendment was procedural and clarificatory.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory amendment to a procedural excise rule governs credit adjustments taken after its commencement, and such credit cannot be denied by reference to the pre-amendment position where the amendment merely explains the procedure.

---