Clarificatory exemption notification applied retrospectively to twisted bars after rolling, extending relief for the disputed period.

Notification No. 170/89-C.E. was treated as a clarificatory amendment that removed an omission in the earlier exemption framework for bars twisted after rolling. The earlier notifications did not expressly cover twisted bars, but the later notification incorporated that language and was applied retrospectively on the basis of the controlling precedent. As a result, the exemption was regarded as available for the disputed period and denial of the exemption was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether Notification No. 170/89-C.E. was clarificatory in nature and therefore applicable retrospectively so as to extend exemption to twisted bars for the disputed period.

Analysis: The appellants had earlier enjoyed exemption under Notification No. 90/88-C.E. Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was framed differently and did not expressly cover bars twisted after rolling. Notification No. 170/89-C.E. amended the earlier notification by incorporating the words covering bars twisted after rolling. The controlling precedent treated Notification No. 170/89-C.E. as a clarificatory amendment meant to remove an omission in the earlier notification, and the present facts were held to fall within that ratio. On that basis, the exemption was held to be available for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. Notification No. 170/89-C.E. was held to be clarificatory and retrospective, and the exemption could not be denied for the period in dispute.

---