https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221887 Beneficial CBEC circulars issued under statutory authority were binding on the department while in force, and the 0.5% tolerance for breakage of aerated water bottles could not be denied for the relevant period. The later circular withdrawing that concession was held prospective only, because nothing in its language showed retrospective operation and it was issued to govern future cases. The specific tolerance allowance also supplemented the general remission scheme, so a separate application under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not required for claiming that limited benefit. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2013 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221887 Beneficial CBEC circulars issued under statutory authority were binding on the department while in force, and the 0.5% tolerance for breakage of aerated water bottles could not be denied for the relevant period. The later circular withdrawing that concession was held prospective only, because nothing in its language showed retrospective operation and it was issued to govern future cases. The specific tolerance allowance also supplemented the general remission scheme, so a separate application under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not required for claiming that limited benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221887