Provisional assessment plea rejected where it was not clearly raised and the stay application could not be argued in piecemeal fashion.

A stay order was not modified because the plea of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(1) had not been specifically raised earlier and had already been considered. The communication relied on showed only an intention to clear goods on duty payment with later adjustment of differential duty, not a clear request for provisional assessment, and it did not establish that the officer addressed was the proper authority to order it. A stay application cannot be advanced in piecemeal fashion. Modification was rejected, with only a one-month period allowed for making the deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stay order deserved modification on the ground that the assessments were provisional under Rule 9B(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The contention based on provisional assessment had not been specifically raised earlier and had already been dealt with in the stay order. The communication relied upon did not clearly request provisional assessment, but only indicated an intention to clear goods on payment of duty with a later debit of differential duty. The letter also did not show a proper request for provisional assessment, and the officer addressed was not shown to be the proper authority to order such assessment. A stay application cannot be argued in piecemeal fashion.

Conclusion: The request for modification was rejected, with only a one-month period granted for making the deposit.

---