TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to the benefit of Rule 57-S(2)(b) of 1944 Rules. It appears that though the said proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 existed in the 2002 Rules, by a legislature slip, it was not included in the 2004 Rules. As such, to clarify the position, an amendment was carried out in 2007 to bring it in tune with Rule 57-S(2)(b) of the 1944 Rules. Having held the 2007 amendment to be clarificatory, the effect would be that the said proviso existed in the statute book from 2004 itself. This being the position, the appellant was entitled to take benefit of the said proviso and make an adjustment as per the said proviso. The question of law as framed by the High Court is held in favour of the appellant. The demand issued by the revenue is qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2004 (in short 2004 Rules ) was clearly clarificatory in nature. The High Court further relying on the judgment of this Court in W.P.I.L. Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh reported in (2005) 3 SCC 73 = 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.), observed that the clarificatory notification would take effect retrospectively since such a notification merely clarifies the position of law and makes explicit what was implicit within the said Rule. 6. The factual scenario that existed in the present matter is that the appellant had purchased capital goods and brought them into its factory in Goa and had put them to use during the period from 1999 to 2004. In December, 2005, the said capital goods were removed fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-rule (5) of Rule 3 existed in the 2002 Rules, by a legislature slip, it was not included in the 2004 Rules. As such, to clarify the position, an amendment was carried out in 2007 to bring it in tune with Rule 57-S(2)(b) of the 1944 Rules. 12. Having held that the amendment was clarificatory, in our view, the High Court erred in answering the question against the appellant. 13. Having held the 2007 amendment to be clarificatory, the effect would be that the said proviso existed in the statute book from 2004 itself. This being the position, the appellant was entitled to take benefit of the said proviso and make an adjustment as per the said proviso. 14. We accordingly allow this appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
