https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153558 Credit on spares of conveyor systems falling under Heading 84.74 was held admissible for the disputed interim period, because the heading had been omitted from the eligible capital goods list by Notification No. 14/96-C.E. and later restored by Notification No. 25/96-C.E. The restored notification was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, on the basis that it reinstated a benefit already available before the omission and after the restoration, reflecting a consistent statutory policy. Accordingly, credit was available even during the intervening exclusion period, and the denial of credit was set aside. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2017 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153558 Credit on spares of conveyor systems falling under Heading 84.74 was held admissible for the disputed interim period, because the heading had been omitted from the eligible capital goods list by Notification No. 14/96-C.E. and later restored by Notification No. 25/96-C.E. The restored notification was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, on the basis that it reinstated a benefit already available before the omission and after the restoration, reflecting a consistent statutory policy. Accordingly, credit was available even during the intervening exclusion period, and the denial of credit was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153558