https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112936 An amending notification dated 27-11-1997 was treated as clarificatory and as continuing the earlier compounded levy notification, rather than as operating retrospectively. Differential duty had been paid under the earlier scheme, and the Board's clarification supported the view that the amendment only explained the existing notification's scope and wording. On that basis, the prior-period duty demand was not invalidated, and the refund claim founded on alleged retrospective effect was not maintainable. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 17:13:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112936 An amending notification dated 27-11-1997 was treated as clarificatory and as continuing the earlier compounded levy notification, rather than as operating retrospectively. Differential duty had been paid under the earlier scheme, and the Board's clarification supported the view that the amendment only explained the existing notification's scope and wording. On that basis, the prior-period duty demand was not invalidated, and the refund claim founded on alleged retrospective effect was not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112936