https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54674 The article addresses a stay application arising from a duty demand over the interim period between two exemption notifications concerning decatising/blowing. It notes that a prima facie case was made for treating the later notification as retrospectively covering the activity, which weakened the duty demand at the interim stage. It also records the appellants' contention that, under the notification framework, liability rested on the saree owners rather than the processors, who had not been issued notice. Limitation and financial hardship were also treated as relevant prima facie considerations, leading to full waiver of pre-deposit, stay of recovery, and lifting of the detention order. en-us Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:09:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54674 The article addresses a stay application arising from a duty demand over the interim period between two exemption notifications concerning decatising/blowing. It notes that a prima facie case was made for treating the later notification as retrospectively covering the activity, which weakened the duty demand at the interim stage. It also records the appellants' contention that, under the notification framework, liability rested on the saree owners rather than the processors, who had not been issued notice. Limitation and financial hardship were also treated as relevant prima facie considerations, leading to full waiver of pre-deposit, stay of recovery, and lifting of the detention order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54674