https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90644 Goods cleared under a concessional exemption subject to Chapter X end-use conditions were not liable to retrospective differential duty merely because the notification was later withdrawn. The operative assessment was correct at the time of removal, and the later withdrawal did not create a fresh basis to reassess stock already received under the concessional procedure at the higher rate. The end-use requirement was treated as a post-clearance condition, and the exemption could still be retained if that condition was ultimately satisfied. The Board circular was read consistently with this approach, so the demand for differential duty was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:19:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90644 Goods cleared under a concessional exemption subject to Chapter X end-use conditions were not liable to retrospective differential duty merely because the notification was later withdrawn. The operative assessment was correct at the time of removal, and the later withdrawal did not create a fresh basis to reassess stock already received under the concessional procedure at the higher rate. The end-use requirement was treated as a post-clearance condition, and the exemption could still be retained if that condition was ultimately satisfied. The Board circular was read consistently with this approach, so the demand for differential duty was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90644