( 1 ) THIS appeal, by the assessee, is against the order of the Customs, excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 10-6-1996 in final Order No. 382 of 1996-C in Appeal No. E/1533/94-C. ( 2 ) ). The question that arises for consideration is, whether the amendment brought out to Chapter Note 6 is clarificatory in nature and, therefore, retrospective, or not clarificatory in nature and, therefore, prospective. ( 3 ) ). A perusal of the order under appeal shows that the Tribunal decided the issue following the order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Bright bros. Ltd. and remitted the case to the Commissioner to decide the question of MODVAT and valuation in the light of the decision of the larger Bench in the case of Dai Ichi Karkaria. ( 4 ) ). It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that in regard to the question of nature of the amendment, the view taken by the Tribunal in bright Bros. Ltd. has been reversed by the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Das and Co. v. CCE. 1 (1996) 64 ECR 240 : (1996) 84 ELT 83 (Trib) 2 Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. CCE, (1996) 81 ELT 676 (Trib) (CEGAT) 3 (1998) 102 ELT 296 (Trib) (CEGAT) ( 5 ) ). Having perused the decision of the larger Bench in the case of Das and co. we are of the view that it would be appropriate to leave the question of the nature of the amendment to Chapter Note 6 also to the Commissioner who shall decide both the questions afresh, in the light of the aforementioned decision of the larger Benches of the Tribunal. The order under challenge is modified to that extent. ( 6 ) ). The civil appeal is disposed of in the above terms. ( 7 ) ). No costs.