https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84716 The Tribunal upheld the decision requiring M/s. Myul Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. to pay a 10% differential duty on clearances during a specific period, emphasizing that subsequent notifications cannot nullify benefits availed under previous exemptions. A question of law arose due to conflicting interpretations, leading the Tribunal to refer specific issues to the High Court for clarification. The Tribunal clarified that exemption notifications confer benefits retrospectively, precluding retrospective levy. Questions on the constitutional validity of the 10% differential duty imposition were raised and referred to the High Court for further examination. Additionally, clarification was sought on the duration of the differential duty applicability, particularly whether it applied for the entire month of March 1986 or only for a specific period. en-us Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:40:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84716 The Tribunal upheld the decision requiring M/s. Myul Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. to pay a 10% differential duty on clearances during a specific period, emphasizing that subsequent notifications cannot nullify benefits availed under previous exemptions. A question of law arose due to conflicting interpretations, leading the Tribunal to refer specific issues to the High Court for clarification. The Tribunal clarified that exemption notifications confer benefits retrospectively, precluding retrospective levy. Questions on the constitutional validity of the 10% differential duty imposition were raised and referred to the High Court for further examination. Additionally, clarification was sought on the duration of the differential duty applicability, particularly whether it applied for the entire month of March 1986 or only for a specific period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84716