https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764300 A later customs notification that corrected an inadvertent omission was treated as clarificatory, preserving the original exemption scheme for the intervening period. The dispute concerned whether concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. remained available before Notification No. 127/2011-Cus. expressly clarified the tariff coverage. Applying the principle that a clarification restoring an existing exemption policy may operate retrospectively in effect, the omitted tariff headings were held not to have altered the intended benefit during the interregnum. The appellant was therefore entitled to the concessional duty, and denial of exemption was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jan 2025 08:37:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764300 A later customs notification that corrected an inadvertent omission was treated as clarificatory, preserving the original exemption scheme for the intervening period. The dispute concerned whether concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. remained available before Notification No. 127/2011-Cus. expressly clarified the tariff coverage. Applying the principle that a clarification restoring an existing exemption policy may operate retrospectively in effect, the omitted tariff headings were held not to have altered the intended benefit during the interregnum. The appellant was therefore entitled to the concessional duty, and denial of exemption was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764300