https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88256 The dispute concerned whether the amendment to Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act was clarificatory or prospective in operation. One view treated the temporal effect of the amendment as requiring a Larger Bench reference, while the other view considered the point covered by earlier Tribunal rulings and saw no need for reference. Because of the difference of opinion, the matter was directed to the President for reference to a Larger Bench on the framed question, and the appeal was not finally decided on merits. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:09:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88256 The dispute concerned whether the amendment to Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act was clarificatory or prospective in operation. One view treated the temporal effect of the amendment as requiring a Larger Bench reference, while the other view considered the point covered by earlier Tribunal rulings and saw no need for reference. Because of the difference of opinion, the matter was directed to the President for reference to a Larger Bench on the framed question, and the appeal was not finally decided on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88256