https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105185 A stay order was not modified because the plea of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(1) had not been specifically raised earlier and had already been considered. The communication relied on showed only an intention to clear goods on duty payment with later adjustment of differential duty, not a clear request for provisional assessment, and it did not establish that the officer addressed was the proper authority to order it. A stay application cannot be advanced in piecemeal fashion. Modification was rejected, with only a one-month period allowed for making the deposit. en-us Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:00:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105185 A stay order was not modified because the plea of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(1) had not been specifically raised earlier and had already been considered. The communication relied on showed only an intention to clear goods on duty payment with later adjustment of differential duty, not a clear request for provisional assessment, and it did not establish that the officer addressed was the proper authority to order it. A stay application cannot be advanced in piecemeal fashion. Modification was rejected, with only a one-month period allowed for making the deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105185