{"id":9454,"date":"2026-06-06T11:17:49","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T05:47:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?p=9454"},"modified":"2026-06-06T11:17:49","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T05:47:49","slug":"sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively","title":{"rendered":"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively"},"content":{"rendered":"<pre><strong>Case Details: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/latest-news-updates\/excise-service-tax\/101010000000420701\/amendment-giving-statutory-expression-to-an-existing-legal-position-operates-retrospectively-sc\">Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II (2026) 42 Centax 456 (S.C.)<\/a><\/strong><\/pre>\n<h2><em>Judiciary and Counsel Details<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong>J.B. Pardiwala<\/strong> &amp; <strong>R. Mahadevan<\/strong>, JJ.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><em>Facts of the Case<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>The appellant was engaged in cutting, grooving, and routing Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs) in accordance with customer specifications. The Department alleged that the said activity amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought to levy excise duty thereon. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. However, the Revenue challenged the order before the Karnataka High Court, which reversed the Tribunal&#8217;s decision. The assessee thereafter approached the Supreme Court. The issues before the Court included whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and whether the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act.<\/p>\n<h2><em>Supreme Court Held<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court held that disputes relating to the excisability of goods have a direct nexus with the rate of duty and therefore fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. It further held that the amendment to Section 35L(2) was clarificatory in nature and would operate retrospectively. On the merits, the Court observed that mere cutting, grooving, and routing of Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs) did not result in the emergence of a new commercially distinct product, and the Revenue had failed to establish the marketability of the processed goods. Accordingly, the activity did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.<\/p>\n<h2><em>List of Cases Reviewed<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2011%20(273)%20E.L.T.%20377%20(Kar.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Pushpadeep Enterprises<\/a> \u2014 2011 (273) E.L.T. 377 (Kar.) \u2014 Reversed [Paras 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, 77, 99]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><em>List of Cases Cited<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(157)%20E.L.T.%20393%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2003 (157) E.L.T. 393 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 70]<\/li>\n<li>Bater v. Bater \u2014 [1951] P. 35 \u2014 Noted [Para 91]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1990%20(45)%20E.L.T.%20525%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Bharat Forge &amp; Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 68]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1992%20(61)%20E.L.T.%20560%20(M.P.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Bheraghat Mineral Indus. v. Divisional Dy. Commr. of Sales Tax<\/a> \u2014 1992 (61) E.L.T. 560 (M.P.) \u2014 Noted [Para 71]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(225)%20E.L.T.%20403%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Cipla Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2008 (225) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 90]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1989%20(43)%20E.L.T.%20214%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Collector v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises<\/a> \u2014 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 88]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2000%20(117)%20E.L.T.%20529%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Collector v. United Phosphorus Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2000 (117) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 88]<\/li>\n<li>Commissioner of Income-tax v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. \u2014 (1997) 5 SCC 482 \u2014 Relied on [Para 48]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2017%20(7)%20G.S.T.L.%20202%20(P%20%26%20H)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 202 (P &amp; H) \u2014 Noted [Para 52]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2014%20(34)%20S.T.R.%203%20(Del.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2014 (34) S.T.R. 3 (Del.) \u2014 Noted [Para 31]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2019%20(368)%20E.L.T.%203%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Motorola India Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2019 (368) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 33]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2020%20(372)%20E.L.T.%20220%20(Bom.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Reliance Media Works Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2020 (372) E.L.T. 220 (Bom.) \u2014 Noted [Paras 32, 51]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(186)%20E.L.T.%20385%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 69]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(184)%20E.L.T.%20128%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Gujarat Narmada Valley Ferti. Co. Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 2005 (184) E.L.T. 128 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 89]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(181)%20E.L.T.%20170%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (181) E.L.T. 170 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 89]<\/li>\n<li>M. Rajendran v. KPK Oil and Protiens India (P) Ltd. \u2014 (2026) 3 SCC 505 \u2014 Relied on [Para 49]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1995%20(76)%20E.L.T.%20241%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 82]<\/li>\n<li>Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee \u2014 (1979) 3 SCC 83 \u2014 Relied on [Para 35]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1993%20(68)%20E.L.T.%203%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 15, 33]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2006%20(206)%20E.L.T.%201025%20(Tribunal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Pushpdeep Enterprises v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1025 (Tribunal) \u2014 Referred [Paras 1, 10]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2025)%2034%20Centax%20364%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Quippo Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2025) 34 Centax 364 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 16, 62, 75]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2015%20(319)%20E.L.T.%20578%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2015 (319) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 15, 16, 61, 62, 63]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1986%20(24)%20E.L.T.%20169%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 87]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1977%20(1)%20E.L.T.%20199%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 1977 (1) E.L.T. 199 (S.C.) [Paras 63, 75]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1998%20(97)%20E.L.T.%205%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 15, 61]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(145)%20E.L.T.%20274%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2002 (145) E.L.T. 274 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 83]<\/li>\n<li>University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N. \u2014 (2022) 9 SCC 389 \u2014 Relied on [Para 50]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Details: Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":9460,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49,51,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-excise-service-tax","category-news-excise-service-tax","category-est-case-chronicles"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.9 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SC held that a clarificatory amendment expressing an existing legal position operates retrospectively and ACP processing is not manufacture.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SC held that a clarificatory amendment expressing an existing legal position operates retrospectively and ACP processing is not manufacture.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Centax-Blogs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-06T05:47:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"540\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Centax\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Centax\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Centax\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a\"},\"headline\":\"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-06T05:47:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively\"},\"wordCount\":648,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Excise &amp; Service Tax\",\"News\",\"Case Chronicles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively\",\"name\":\"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-06T05:47:49+00:00\",\"description\":\"SC held that a clarificatory amendment expressing an existing legal position operates retrospectively and ACP processing is not manufacture.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg\",\"width\":920,\"height\":540,\"caption\":\"Retrospective Operation of Clarificatory Amendments\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Centax-Blogs\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Centax-Blogs\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp\",\"width\":536,\"height\":133,\"caption\":\"Centax-Blogs\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a\",\"name\":\"Centax\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Centax\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/author\/centax-editorial-team\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively","description":"SC held that a clarificatory amendment expressing an existing legal position operates retrospectively and ACP processing is not manufacture.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively","og_description":"SC held that a clarificatory amendment expressing an existing legal position operates retrospectively and ACP processing is not manufacture.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively","og_site_name":"Centax-Blogs","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia","article_published_time":"2026-06-06T05:47:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":920,"height":540,"url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Centax","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Centax","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively"},"author":{"name":"Centax","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a"},"headline":"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively","datePublished":"2026-06-06T05:47:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively"},"wordCount":648,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg","articleSection":["Excise &amp; Service Tax","News","Case Chronicles"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively","name":"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-06T05:47:49+00:00","description":"SC held that a clarificatory amendment expressing an existing legal position operates retrospectively and ACP processing is not manufacture.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/3.-SC-Ruled-that-Clarificatory-Amendments-Operate-Retrospectively.jpg","width":920,"height":540,"caption":"Retrospective Operation of Clarificatory Amendments"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/sc-ruled-that-clarificatory-amendments-operate-retrospectively#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/","name":"Centax-Blogs","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Centax-Blogs","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp","width":536,"height":133,"caption":"Centax-Blogs"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a","name":"Centax","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Centax"},"url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/author\/centax-editorial-team"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9454"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9454\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9461,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9454\/revisions\/9461"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}