https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96102 Partial pre-deposit was justified where the assessee showed no financial hardship and the abatement claim appeared prima facie defective for non-compliance with the mandatory closure-intimation requirement under Rule 96ZO(2)(e). The demand raised in the impugned order, although not expressly set out in the show-cause notice, was treated as a consequential issue linked to rejection of abatement and left for detailed examination in the appeal. The interim relief was therefore limited to a deposit of part of the disputed duty, and full stay of recovery was declined. en-us Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:34:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96102 Partial pre-deposit was justified where the assessee showed no financial hardship and the abatement claim appeared prima facie defective for non-compliance with the mandatory closure-intimation requirement under Rule 96ZO(2)(e). The demand raised in the impugned order, although not expressly set out in the show-cause notice, was treated as a consequential issue linked to rejection of abatement and left for detailed examination in the appeal. The interim relief was therefore limited to a deposit of part of the disputed duty, and full stay of recovery was declined. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96102