JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - In view of the order proposed to be made, the facts need not be noticed in any greater detail since the issues involved are primarily legal. 2. The essential facts have been recorded in the previous order of February 15, 2022, though the parties were left free to urge all grounds. 3. The appellant-assessee procured an Arc Furnace as capital goods for the purpose of its manufacturing unit that produces ferro silicate components which attract excise duty. However, by reason of the location of the manufacturing unit, the assessee is entitled to refund of the excise duty to the extent paid. The appellant was also entitled to obtain Cenvat credit for acquisition of capital goods used in its process of manufacture. However, in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as such Rule stood at the relevant time, when any capital goods had been acquired and Cenvat credit obtained, if such capital goods were subsequently to be sold or transferred, the Cenvat credit had to be refunded. 4. Under the practice that was followed for the assessee to obtain the refund of the excise duty paid, it would first adjust the quantum of excise duty payable against any Cenvat credit in the assessee's account; and the balance amount of the duty would be paid in cash. A return would be filed by the assessee at the end of each month. Upon scrutiny of the return, the amount of excise duty paid in cash would be refunded to the assessee by the concerned Assistant Commissioner. 5. As regards the acquisition of any capital goods upon obtaining Cenvat credit, at the time of sale or transfer of such capital goods, the extent of Cenvat credit availed of had to be refunded. Rule 3(5) of the said Rules as it stood used the expression 'as such' but did not make any distinction between capital goods that may have been acquired 10 years back and used and capital goods which may have been acquired a day before and proposed to be sold or transferred without being used. It is obvious that if the capital goods had been put to use they would suffer depreciation and the usual wear and tear and would not be worth the price at which they were acquired at the time of the subsequent sale or transfer. It is obvious that if the capital goods had been put to use they would suffer depreciation and the usual wear and tear and would not be worth the price at which they were acquired at the time of the subsequent sale or transfer. The duration of use may have a bearing on the quantum of reduction of the value of the capital goods. However, the relevant Rule, apparently, did not expressly take such aspect into account. At the same time to ensure that the amount to be refunded under the Rule was rational and not arbitrary or oppressive, the Rule could be read with reference to the expression 'as such'. That would imply that if the capital goods acquired were in the same state as at the time of acquisition, a complete refund of the Cenvat credit would have to be made. As a corollary, it would follow that if the capital goods were not in the state in which it had been acquired - upon such capital goods being put to use - the entirety of the Cenvat credit may not have to be refunded. The Rule, however, made no express distinction as to the quantum of refund of Cenvat credit that had to be made for no use or for little use or for exhaustive use of the capital goods. 6. This anomaly in Rule 3(5) of the said Rules was addressed by a 2007 amendment that made a distinction and gave a rebate of two and half percent of the Cenvat credit obtained for every quarter of use of the capital goods. Thus, if the capital goods had been used for a period of 10 years, only a nominal amount of the Cenvat credit obtained would be liable to be refunded; whereas, if the capital goods were not used at all and proposed to be sold in the same quarter in which they were acquired, the entirety of the Cenvat credit obtained would have to be refunded. 7. Indeed, there is also a provision in the said Rules that when the capital goods are reduced to scrap, it is only the duty on the transaction which has to be paid and not a refund on the entirety of the Cenvat credit obtained at the time of the acquisition of the capital goods. 8. 7. Indeed, there is also a provision in the said Rules that when the capital goods are reduced to scrap, it is only the duty on the transaction which has to be paid and not a refund on the entirety of the Cenvat credit obtained at the time of the acquisition of the capital goods. 8. In the present case, upon the assessee using the Arc Furnace for a considerable period of time, it desired to replace the same or, at any rate, to sell or transfer the same; whereupon the assessee was required to refund in cash the entire quantum of Cenvat credit that it had obtained at the time of the acquisition of the Arc Furnace. There is no dispute that such refund was made in cash. However, according to the Department, the assessee acted in a mischievous manner by incorporating the amount of Cenvat credit refunded in respect of the Arc Furnace in its return at the end of the month. The Department claims that the Assistant Commissioner, in his mistaken belief that the money that had been paid and indicated in the return was in connection with the duty on the manufactured goods of the assessee, refunded back the Cenvat credit obtained in respect of the Arc Furnace. A few months down the line, the alleged mistake was noticed and a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the amount should not be refunded by the assessee. For such purpose, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was pressed into service to demand the refund apparently erroneously made. 9. To complete the narration, the refund was extracted and the assessee's entreaties right up to the Tribunal fell on deaf ears. It is the order of the Tribunal upholding the entitlement of the Department to obtain the refund of the relevant amount of about Rs. 1.58 crore that is the subject-matter of the present challenge. 10. Of the several grounds urged by the assessee, three are of some relevance. According to the assessee, there was no attempt on its behalf to mislead the Assistant Commissioner or induce the Assistant Commissioner to believe that the amount paid in cash on account of the refund of the Cenvat credit obtained for the Arc Furnace was duty paid for its manufactured products. According to the assessee, there was no attempt on its behalf to mislead the Assistant Commissioner or induce the Assistant Commissioner to believe that the amount paid in cash on account of the refund of the Cenvat credit obtained for the Arc Furnace was duty paid for its manufactured products. The appellant next says that Section 11A of the said Act could not have been invoked as the concerned Assistant Commissioner is deemed to have applied his mind before arriving at a decision to refund the amount to the assessee. The assessee asserts that in such a scenario, an appeal could be carried by the Department against the order of refund made by the Assistant Commissioner, but Section 11A of the Act, as it then stood, could not have been invoked. 11. The further point made by the assessee is that even if Section 11A of the Act had been invoked by the Department, the Tribunal erred in reading the amended Section 11A of the Act to assess the matter, though it is the undisputed position that the unamended Section 11A of the Act was applicable to the present case. Though some structural changes were made to Section 11A by bringing in some of the conditions indicated by way of a proviso to the substantive part of such provision, the material change that was effected by way of the subsequent amendment to Section 11A of the Act was in the introduction of the expansive expression 'for any reason'. 12. The assessee contends that since the expression 'for any reason' did not find any place in Section 11A of the Act that ought to have been applied to the present case, it is evident that the Tribunal took irrelevant considerations into account and the decision-making process itself was awry. 13. The second principal ground pressed by the assessee is that notwithstanding the Rule 3(5) having been amended in the year 2007 and the demand for refund of the Cenvat credit on account of capital goods having been raised on the assessee earlier, the Tribunal at various places and some High Courts have taken a view that the benefit given under amended Rule 3(5) of the said Rules for depreciation of the capital goods would, in effect, have retrospective operation. For such purpose, the assessee relies on a judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal reported at 2013 (298) ELT 541 which accepted a view expressed by the Madras High Court in a decision reported at 2011 (264) ELT 367. 14. Amendments to enactments or rules or instructions sometimes bring about an altered situation or, at times, may be clarificatory in nature. When an amendment is clarificatory, then such amendment has to be read into the provision sought to be amended as if it was included therein from the inception of such provision. In the present case, despite the use of the expression 'as such' in original Rule 3(5) of the said Rules of 2004, no remission was given as to the quantum of refund of the Cenvat credit earlier availed of by taking into account the tenure of use of the capital goods. Plainly, it was irrational. The usual wear and tear of any goods would diminish its value, as the rule of depreciation instructs, upon its use over a period of time. In such a scenario, Rule 3(5) of the said Rules of 2004 could have been seen to have been arbitrary in not making a distinction between the quantum of Cenvat credit that ought to be refunded by an assessee who intended to sell any capital goods for which Cenvat credit which had been obtained, within a short time of the acquisition of capital goods or after long years of use thereof. The distinction was brought about and the remission, so to say, was provided in the amended Rule 3(5) of the said Rules in 2007. 15. On facts similar to the present case, the Madras High Court upheld the view taken by the Tribunal in interpreting the benefit conferred by the amendment to Rule 3(5) to have retrospective operation even if the demand for the refund of the Cenvat credit obtained for the capital goods had been raised prior to the amendment of 2007. 16. The third and the most important ground urged by the appellant is that in view of the exemption that the appellant is entitled to by reason of the location of its manufacturing facility, the assessee ought not to have been required to make any refund of the Cenvat credit obtained at the time of purchase of the Arc Furnace. 16. The third and the most important ground urged by the appellant is that in view of the exemption that the appellant is entitled to by reason of the location of its manufacturing facility, the assessee ought not to have been required to make any refund of the Cenvat credit obtained at the time of purchase of the Arc Furnace. The assessee asserts that since the excise duty paid by it is refunded by the Department and the Cenvat credit obtained for acquisition of the Arc Furnace was adjusted, like currency, against the excise duty payable on the manufactured goods; the assessee being required to disgorge the Cenvat credit obtained, amounts to the equivalent exemption that it was otherwise entitled to being denied to it. 17. In other words, what the assessee says is that if it was liable in a month to pay Rs. 100 on account of the excise duty it would be entitled to get refund of such amount of Rs. 100 the next month and so on. However, if the assessee had adjusted the Cenvat credit obtained for the capital goods against a part of the excise duty payable for its manufactured goods, then the appellant would have paid only the amount by which the duty exceeded the Cenvat credit in cash to be entitled to receive the refund of such cash only. In this case, when the appellant had used the Cenvat credit for acquiring the Arc Furnace and had adjusted the same against excise duty payable for its manufactured goods and paid the balance amount in cash after adjusting the credit, the quantum of credit which the assessee had obtained is lost forever to the assessee. What the assessee suggests is that the Cenvat credit given for acquisition of capital goods to a manufacturer, who is otherwise exempted from paying excise duty on its manufactured products, is revenue neutral. There is considerable force in such contention that when a manufacturer is entitled to refund of the entire excise duty, the refund to the Department of any adjusted Cenvat credit availed of would again have to be refunded by the Department by virtue of the exemption to which the assessee is entitled to. 18. There is considerable force in such contention that when a manufacturer is entitled to refund of the entire excise duty, the refund to the Department of any adjusted Cenvat credit availed of would again have to be refunded by the Department by virtue of the exemption to which the assessee is entitled to. 18. The third aspect - the most important ground - urged on behalf of the assessee goes to the root of the matter does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order dated January 16, 2020. 19. The Department, fairly, accepts that the matter may require fresh consideration. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated January 16, 2020 is set aside. The order of the adjudicating authority that was carried to the Tribunal is also set aside. 20. However, without the remanding the matter to the Tribunal, it is deemed fit and proper to remand the matter to the previous level, the adjudicating authority, for the entire gamut of the matter to be considered afresh in accordance with law. It is hoped that the appropriate adjudicating authority would render its decision within a period of four months of the receipt of a copy of this order. It is also hoped that the adjudicating authority shall afford a personal hearing to the assessee or the assessee's representative. It will be open to the parties to challenge the order of the adjudicating authority before the Tribunal in accordance with law. 21. Central Excise Appeal No. 2 of 2021 and MC (Central Excise Ap.) No. 2/2021 are disposed of without any order as to costs.