https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81380 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the demand for the payment of the differential duty by the Superintendent. It held that the duty charge attaches upon the removal of goods, and the stay order only delayed the enforcement but did not negate the duty liability. The Tribunal found that the Superintendent's communication, endorsed on RT 12 returns, was sufficient notice for the levy, and Section 11A procedures were not required in this case where the duty had already been levied but collection was stayed. The decision was based on established legal precedents and upheld the Superintendent's actions. en-us Fri, 31 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:19:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81380 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the demand for the payment of the differential duty by the Superintendent. It held that the duty charge attaches upon the removal of goods, and the stay order only delayed the enforcement but did not negate the duty liability. The Tribunal found that the Superintendent's communication, endorsed on RT 12 returns, was sufficient notice for the levy, and Section 11A procedures were not required in this case where the duty had already been levied but collection was stayed. The decision was based on established legal precedents and upheld the Superintendent's actions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81380