https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385368 Notification No. 52/2003-Customs governed the import/procurement when the liability arose, requiring capital goods to be installed or otherwise used within one year, with extension up to five years. The petitioner had not obtained the necessary extension and had already incurred liability under that regime. Notification No. 34/2015-Customs, which later relaxed the installation requirement, contained no clear indication that it was intended to retrospectively extinguish antecedent defaults or liabilities already accrued. A later amendment does not erase vested or accrued liability unless retrospective operation is expressed clearly. The challenge therefore failed. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:14:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385368 Notification No. 52/2003-Customs governed the import/procurement when the liability arose, requiring capital goods to be installed or otherwise used within one year, with extension up to five years. The petitioner had not obtained the necessary extension and had already incurred liability under that regime. Notification No. 34/2015-Customs, which later relaxed the installation requirement, contained no clear indication that it was intended to retrospectively extinguish antecedent defaults or liabilities already accrued. A later amendment does not erase vested or accrued liability unless retrospective operation is expressed clearly. The challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 04 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385368