https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87048 Exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. could not be denied merely because the inputs were received on gate passes showing nil duty during the relevant period. The applicable proviso required duty-paid inputs, but the notification then in force did not expressly exclude exempted or nil-rate clearances. The later amendment of 01-03-1989 introduced that exclusion as a new condition, and it could not be applied retrospectively to earlier clearances. The exemption was therefore admissible for the period in dispute, and the demand and penalties based on denial of that benefit could not survive. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:43:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87048 Exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. could not be denied merely because the inputs were received on gate passes showing nil duty during the relevant period. The applicable proviso required duty-paid inputs, but the notification then in force did not expressly exclude exempted or nil-rate clearances. The later amendment of 01-03-1989 introduced that exclusion as a new condition, and it could not be applied retrospectively to earlier clearances. The exemption was therefore admissible for the period in dispute, and the demand and penalties based on denial of that benefit could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87048