https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122094 A strong prima facie case was found where the lower appellate authority gave conflicting views on whether the amendment to Rule 57D(2) was clarificatory and retrospective, while also failing to decide the substantive eligibility to credit. In that situation, the text states that waiver of pre-deposit was warranted and the matter required fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee. The dispute was therefore remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in accordance with law and reasonable opportunity of hearing. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:12:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122094 A strong prima facie case was found where the lower appellate authority gave conflicting views on whether the amendment to Rule 57D(2) was clarificatory and retrospective, while also failing to decide the substantive eligibility to credit. In that situation, the text states that waiver of pre-deposit was warranted and the matter required fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee. The dispute was therefore remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in accordance with law and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122094