JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant central excise appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by the appellant- Firm so as to challenge the order dated 28th of October, 2016 passed by Principal Bench, Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in Appeal No.E-55640/2013 to the extent of confirming the demand of duty and interest with grant of extraordinary cost to the appellant. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of Electric Insulator and was availing Cenvat Credit Duty paid on inputs. The appellant cleared some of the furnished excisable goods to Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project without payment of duty under Notification No.46/2008-CE dated 14.08.2008. The appellant firm was not maintaining separate account of inputs used for manufacturing of exempted final products, therefore, proceedings were initiated against the appellant firm raising demand and recovery of amount equal to 10% of value of such exemption goods cleared in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Rules of 2004). The period involved was May, 2009 to June, 2009. A show cause notice was issued on 16.04.2010 demanding 10% amount in terms of Rules of 2004. 3. The appellant filed its reply on 06.07.2010 and pleaded that provisions of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004 were not applicable in its case and they were covered by Rule 6(6)(vii), therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay 10% of the value of the exempted goods. The respondent No.1 passed order-in-original No.8/11 CE/JP-II-Addl. Comm. dated 02.02.2011 confirming the demand of Rs.22,88,591/- being 10% amount and also imposed equal penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred appeal before the respondent No.3 on 020.5.2011 and pleaded that there was no need to give retrospective effect to the amendment carried by Notification No.6/2010-CF (Anti) dated 27.02.2010 because this notification substitute the original provision of Clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004. It was also pleaded that "substitute" means putting something, "in place" or "instead of", therefore, the substituted amendment carried out by the Notification No.6/2010 CE/Anti dated 27.02.2010 has to be taken as effective from the date of original notification. It was also pleaded that "substitute" means putting something, "in place" or "instead of", therefore, the substituted amendment carried out by the Notification No.6/2010 CE/Anti dated 27.02.2010 has to be taken as effective from the date of original notification. While relying upon certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that exemption notification will have a retrospective effect from the date of original notification as it was not said to be expressly to be prospective, the object of the Government was to give some benefit to substituted port as given to listed ports. In view of above background of the facts and doctrine of fairness, exemption/beneficial notification is to be given retrospective effect-intent objection of the legislation can be culled out from the background facts. 5. As per pleadings on 12.09.2012 appellant deposited Rs.11,44,291/- being 50% of the amount of original demand and intimated the fact on 14.09.2012 to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 did not accept the contention of the appellant as raised in the memo of appeal, upheld the order of Addl. Commissioner dated 06.11.2012. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision, appellant preferred appeal before the CESTAT, New Delhi and filed additional written submissions at the time of hearing. The learned CESTAT, New Delhi, passed Final Order No.A-54601/2016 XE DB dated 28.10.2016 whereby CESTAT upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of confirming the demand of Rs.2,88,591/- but set aside the equivalent penalty imposed under Rule 15 (2) of the Rules of 2004 as show cause notice was issued within normal period of limitation and there was no suppression on the part of the appellant as it had cleared such goods without payment of duty only after obtaining the permission from the office of jurisdictional assistant commissioner. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned CESTAT, New Delhi has failed to examine the issue involved and overlooked the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the benefit of exemption from excise duty available under Rule 91 of the Notification No.6/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 was extended to goods cleared under Mega Projects from which the power procurement was to be tied up through Tariff Based Competitive Bid by notification dated 14.08.2008 by insertion of Serial No.91A. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the benefit of exemption from excise duty available under Rule 91 of the Notification No.6/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 was extended to goods cleared under Mega Projects from which the power procurement was to be tied up through Tariff Based Competitive Bid by notification dated 14.08.2008 by insertion of Serial No.91A. According to counsel for the appellant, no amendment was made in Clause (vii) of sub Rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004, according to which provision of Rule 6(1) , (2), (3) and (4) which were reversal of Cenvat credit when the inputs are used in manufacturing of both dutiable as well as exempted final products are not applicable in the case of certain types of supplies made without payment of duty. 8. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no need to give retrospective effect to the amendment carried out by the notification dated 27.02.2010 because this notification substitutes the original provision of Clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004, which itself was inserted vide Notification dated 28.01.2005. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that it is a case in which very important substantial question of law arises for consideration, whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in extending the benefit of amendment made by the Notification No.6/2010 CE (Anti) dated 27.02.2010 substituting Clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004 by new close retrospectively. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the impugned order passed by learned CESTAT, New Delhi. The learned CESTAT after considering the facts gave finding that the appellant cleared his final products without payment of duty to Mega Power Projects and did not maintain separate accounts for inputs which are used for such final products. In such situation, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(i) is attracted, which mandates that the assessee has to pay an amount equal to 10% of value of the exempted final products. Some exclusions are made for application of this provision under sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004. In such situation, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(i) is attracted, which mandates that the assessee has to pay an amount equal to 10% of value of the exempted final products. Some exclusions are made for application of this provision under sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004. During the period when the final products were cleared by the appellant, there is no such exclusion for Mega Power Projects in the application of Rule 6(3), therefore, the learned CESTAT held that the amendment carried out in sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 vide Notification No.6/2010 CE dated 27.02.2010 should be clarified and imply to the clearance made in the months of May and June 2009 as illegal, and unsustainable. The learned CESTAT further held that there is nothing in the amendment notification which indicate such presumption, therefore, the amendment carried out by the Notification No.6/2010 CE cannot be given retrospective effect as claimed by the appellant. The learned Tribunal while considering all the judgments cited before it, partly allowed the appeal. 10. In our opinion, the learned CESTAT, New Delhi, considered the judgment rendered in the case of S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur, 2016 334 LT 105 (Tri. Mumbai) held that said decision is regarding applicability of exclusion made under Rule 6(6) on SEZ developers, therefore, the amendment by such notification brought into new type of clearance of exclusion under Rule 6(6). In absence of indication to the effect in the statutory provision it cannot be held that said amendment should be considered as retrospectively. 11. The learned CESTAT, New Delhi, considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association, (2005) 187 ELT 162 (SC) and observed in the order that said judgment was dealing with either the general principle of interpreting an exemption notification and specific case of re-introduction of exemption for pumps in a given context. 12. In view of above, we are of the opinion that there is concurrent finding of the authorities below after due consideration of all the arguments and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration. 13. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed.