https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372031 The amended exemption notifications did not materially curtail the entitlement recognised in SRF Ltd., because Notification No. 34/2015 introduced an input-duty and credit condition without changing the governing principle, and Notification No. 37/2015 further treated nil duty payment on inputs as qualifying payment of duty. On that basis, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly considered the amendments and the binding precedent, and that earlier orders in the importer's own case had already attained finality. The notification benefit therefore continued to apply to the imported goods, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:36:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372031 The amended exemption notifications did not materially curtail the entitlement recognised in SRF Ltd., because Notification No. 34/2015 introduced an input-duty and credit condition without changing the governing principle, and Notification No. 37/2015 further treated nil duty payment on inputs as qualifying payment of duty. On that basis, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly considered the amendments and the binding precedent, and that earlier orders in the importer's own case had already attained finality. The notification benefit therefore continued to apply to the imported goods, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372031