https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98912 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. en-us Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:40:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98912 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98912