https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202087 The Appellate Tribunal considered whether an amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was clarificatory and retrospective. The Division Bench referred the issue to a Larger Bench for resolution. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that orders in stay applications are interim and do not create binding precedents until final disposal. The judgment highlighted that interim orders are based on specific case facts and do not set precedents for future cases. The Tribunal emphasized that the discretion to grant interim relief lies with the judicial authority on a case-by-case basis. en-us Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202087 The Appellate Tribunal considered whether an amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was clarificatory and retrospective. The Division Bench referred the issue to a Larger Bench for resolution. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that orders in stay applications are interim and do not create binding precedents until final disposal. The judgment highlighted that interim orders are based on specific case facts and do not set precedents for future cases. The Tribunal emphasized that the discretion to grant interim relief lies with the judicial authority on a case-by-case basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202087