https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121696 An amendment to Notification No. 67/95 was held to operate prospectively, because it introduced a substantive change and showed no clear intent for retrospective application. As a result, captively consumed clinker cleared in May 2001 did not qualify for exemption where the final product was cleared at nil rate of duty, and the duty demand was sustained. Penalty, however, was not justified because the dispute turned on bona fide interpretation of the exemption notification and no mala fides or deliberate evasion were shown, so the penal component was deleted. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121696 An amendment to Notification No. 67/95 was held to operate prospectively, because it introduced a substantive change and showed no clear intent for retrospective application. As a result, captively consumed clinker cleared in May 2001 did not qualify for exemption where the final product was cleared at nil rate of duty, and the duty demand was sustained. Penalty, however, was not justified because the dispute turned on bona fide interpretation of the exemption notification and no mala fides or deliberate evasion were shown, so the penal component was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121696