https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88254 Under Rule 57F(1)(ii), the duty payable on inputs cleared as such was governed by the duty already suffered by the inputs at receipt, not by any reassessed or enhanced duty at the user's end. The later amendment was treated as non-clarificatory and not retrospective, so the pre-amendment position continued to apply to such clearances. On that basis, a demand for higher duty could not stand merely because the goods were removed as such if duty equal to the Modvat credit taken had already been paid. The matter was remitted for verification of actual payment and for fresh adjudication only on any balance liability. en-us Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:03:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88254 Under Rule 57F(1)(ii), the duty payable on inputs cleared as such was governed by the duty already suffered by the inputs at receipt, not by any reassessed or enhanced duty at the user's end. The later amendment was treated as non-clarificatory and not retrospective, so the pre-amendment position continued to apply to such clearances. On that basis, a demand for higher duty could not stand merely because the goods were removed as such if duty equal to the Modvat credit taken had already been paid. The matter was remitted for verification of actual payment and for fresh adjudication only on any balance liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88254