https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124020 The amended explanation to Notification No. 21/2004, which expressly included countervailing duty, was treated as prospective because the original wording did not include that levy and was not open to two interpretations. The later amendment therefore did not operate as a mere clarification. On the interim refund and credit question, exemption of the final product from central excise duty meant prima facie entitlement to Modvat credit of countervailing duty was not established. The claim was considered arguable, but not strong enough to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit, and substantial pre-deposit was required before the appeal could proceed. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:15:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124020 The amended explanation to Notification No. 21/2004, which expressly included countervailing duty, was treated as prospective because the original wording did not include that levy and was not open to two interpretations. The later amendment therefore did not operate as a mere clarification. On the interim refund and credit question, exemption of the final product from central excise duty meant prima facie entitlement to Modvat credit of countervailing duty was not established. The claim was considered arguable, but not strong enough to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit, and substantial pre-deposit was required before the appeal could proceed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124020