Pusher-type furnace classification and annual capacity stand final, but recovery stay failed because duty liability was not quantified.

The furnace classification was treated as finally settled as 'Pusher' type after remand, because the appellants were heard and allowed to adduce evidence, and the Commissioner finalised annual capacity on that basis; the appellants could not re-agitate the furnace type before any authority. On recovery, the Tribunal held that a stay could not be granted where no order quantifying the excise duty liability had been produced, since recovery proceedings could not be assessed or restrained without a quantified demand. The stay petitions were therefore dismissed.

---

---

Outcome: The stay petitions were dismissed as the duty liability had not yet been quantified, and no stay of recovery proceedings was warranted.

---