Retrospective exemption relief requires clear wording; withdrawal of a restriction in an exemption notification was held prospective only.

A later notification withdrawing a restriction in an exemption scheme was treated as a prospective policy change, not a retrospective or clarificatory amendment. The earlier restriction had excluded DGTD-registered factories from the small-scale exemption from 1 April 1994, and the subsequent notification merely removed that exclusion without stating any backdating. On that basis, the withdrawal could not be read into the earlier period, and DGTD-registered units remained outside the exemption for April 1994.

---

---

Issues: Whether Notification No. 125/94-C.E. dated 31-8-1994, which withdrew the restriction introduced by Notification No. 59/94-C.E. dated 1-3-1994, operated retrospectively from 1-4-1994 so as to entitle DGTD-registered units to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. during April 1994.

Analysis: Notification No. 59/94-C.E. had inserted a restriction excluding factories registered with DGTD from the small-scale exemption with effect from 1-4-1994. Notification No. 125/94-C.E. subsequently withdrew that restriction, but the withdrawal of a condition from an exemption notification is not, by itself, clarificatory. The later notification did not state that it would take effect from 1-4-1994, nor did it indicate retrospective operation. The contemporaneous introduction of the restriction and the later removal of it were treated as distinct policy changes, and the later amendment could not be read back into the earlier period.

Conclusion: The notification dated 31-8-1994 was held to be prospective only, and DGTD-registered units were not entitled to the exemption for April 1994. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent notification withdrawing a restriction in an exemption notification is not retrospective or clarificatory unless the instrument expressly or necessarily indicates such operation.

---