https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123214 The dispute concerned whether Notification No. 29/2004-Cus. amending Notifications Nos. 28/97-Cus. and 29/97-Cus. had to be applied retrospectively. The analysis treated the 1997 notifications as the governing framework in light of the earlier remand and applied the principle that substitution of words in a notification may have retrospective operation where the context requires it. On that basis, the amendment was read as retrospective, the order under challenge did not disclose an apparent error, and no prima facie case for stay was made out. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:21:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123214 The dispute concerned whether Notification No. 29/2004-Cus. amending Notifications Nos. 28/97-Cus. and 29/97-Cus. had to be applied retrospectively. The analysis treated the 1997 notifications as the governing framework in light of the earlier remand and applied the principle that substitution of words in a notification may have retrospective operation where the context requires it. On that basis, the amendment was read as retrospective, the order under challenge did not disclose an apparent error, and no prima facie case for stay was made out. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123214