https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362731 A substituted entry in Notification No. 5/2016-Cus.(ADD) was treated as operating retrospectively because the word "substituted" was used without any express prospective limitation, so the amended entry was read into the principal notification from its original date. On that interpretation, goods classifiable under CTH 5402 2090 were outside the anti-dumping levy, and duty already paid was held refundable. The court also noted that the dispute involved interpretation of the notification itself, so the writ remedy was not barred by the availability of an alternative appellate route. The refund claim was therefore held maintainable. en-us Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2019 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362731 A substituted entry in Notification No. 5/2016-Cus.(ADD) was treated as operating retrospectively because the word "substituted" was used without any express prospective limitation, so the amended entry was read into the principal notification from its original date. On that interpretation, goods classifiable under CTH 5402 2090 were outside the anti-dumping levy, and duty already paid was held refundable. The court also noted that the dispute involved interpretation of the notification itself, so the writ remedy was not barred by the availability of an alternative appellate route. The refund claim was therefore held maintainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362731