https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109823 Permission granted to clear goods under Section 3, coupled with a stated year-end review, could not be retrospectively displaced to demand duty under Rule 96ZO for the earlier period when the assessee had acted on that permission and the assessments were not provisional. The authority could not later resile from the unchallenged permission, reopen the settled position, or impose past liability without a show cause notice. On that basis, the proposed duty demand, reversal of Modvat credit, and interest for the prior period were held unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:34:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109823 Permission granted to clear goods under Section 3, coupled with a stated year-end review, could not be retrospectively displaced to demand duty under Rule 96ZO for the earlier period when the assessee had acted on that permission and the assessments were not provisional. The authority could not later resile from the unchallenged permission, reopen the settled position, or impose past liability without a show cause notice. On that basis, the proposed duty demand, reversal of Modvat credit, and interest for the prior period were held unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109823