https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780653 CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and upheld refund claims for differential excise duty. It held the challenged notifications did not satisfy both conditions of Section 5A(5) and therefore their issue dates could not be treated as effective dates for higher duty; subsequent notifications treating effectiveness from the day after issue reinforced this. Reliance on the SC decision in a similar case supported that enhanced rates were not effective until publication/offering for sale, so duty demand was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:40:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780653 CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and upheld refund claims for differential excise duty. It held the challenged notifications did not satisfy both conditions of Section 5A(5) and therefore their issue dates could not be treated as effective dates for higher duty; subsequent notifications treating effectiveness from the day after issue reinforced this. Reliance on the SC decision in a similar case supported that enhanced rates were not effective until publication/offering for sale, so duty demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780653