https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98131 The appellant's claim for benefits under Notification No. 93/88 and Notification No. 173/88 was denied as the ship did not fulfill the condition of paying additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Despite arguing that subsequent amendments made them eligible, the court held that the amendments were not retrospective, relying on the decision in Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was rejected due to non-compliance with the conditions of the notifications. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:56:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98131 The appellant's claim for benefits under Notification No. 93/88 and Notification No. 173/88 was denied as the ship did not fulfill the condition of paying additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Despite arguing that subsequent amendments made them eligible, the court held that the amendments were not retrospective, relying on the decision in Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was rejected due to non-compliance with the conditions of the notifications. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98131