https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339013 Notification No. 4/2005-C.E. was treated as clarificatory and curative because it implemented an already declared policy not to burden PDS kerosene with excise duty after withdrawal of the warehousing facility. On that basis, the exemption was held applicable to clearances made during the interregnum, and duty could not be levied merely because the notification was issued later. The refund claim was therefore justified, and the Revenue challenge failed. The valuation objection was not examined further as it had become academic. en-us Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339013 Notification No. 4/2005-C.E. was treated as clarificatory and curative because it implemented an already declared policy not to burden PDS kerosene with excise duty after withdrawal of the warehousing facility. On that basis, the exemption was held applicable to clearances made during the interregnum, and duty could not be levied merely because the notification was issued later. The refund claim was therefore justified, and the Revenue challenge failed. The valuation objection was not examined further as it had become academic. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339013