https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101567 In a stay application concerning duty on captively consumed yarn, recovery was stayed because the departmental comparison with factory-gate sales failed on prima facie comparability. The original authority had found that the sold yarn included additional processing costs not present in the captively consumed yarn, and that finding was not challenged by the Revenue. As the proposed comparable goods were therefore not shown to be truly comparable, there was no sufficient basis to permit recovery pending appeal. Recovery of the duty demand was stayed, and no recovery proceedings were to be initiated during the operation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:22:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101567 In a stay application concerning duty on captively consumed yarn, recovery was stayed because the departmental comparison with factory-gate sales failed on prima facie comparability. The original authority had found that the sold yarn included additional processing costs not present in the captively consumed yarn, and that finding was not challenged by the Revenue. As the proposed comparable goods were therefore not shown to be truly comparable, there was no sufficient basis to permit recovery pending appeal. Recovery of the duty demand was stayed, and no recovery proceedings were to be initiated during the operation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101567