https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204613 A circular clarifying that exemption was unavailable to IV cannulas did not amount to a new tariff reclassification and was treated as clarificatory rather than prospective only. On the stay application, the Tribunal also noted that reliable disclosure of IV cannulas in the relevant returns or declarations had not been shown, so the department's extended-period case was not disproved at that stage. Full waiver of pre-deposit was therefore refused, but partial relief was granted by directing a deposit of Rs. 15,00,000 and waiving the balance demand. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204613 A circular clarifying that exemption was unavailable to IV cannulas did not amount to a new tariff reclassification and was treated as clarificatory rather than prospective only. On the stay application, the Tribunal also noted that reliable disclosure of IV cannulas in the relevant returns or declarations had not been shown, so the department's extended-period case was not disproved at that stage. Full waiver of pre-deposit was therefore refused, but partial relief was granted by directing a deposit of Rs. 15,00,000 and waiving the balance demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204613