https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111804 A challenge to penalty was assessed on the footing of a confirmed duty demand, and the plea that clearances were provisional was not entertained because it had not been raised when the duty liability was originally decided. The Tribunal held that a ground attacking the validity of the duty confirmation cannot be introduced for the first time in subsequent penalty proceedings once the duty demand has attained finality. Penalty under Rule 96ZO(1) was therefore treated as maintainable, and interim relief was made conditional on a partial pre-deposit, with recovery stayed for the balance. en-us Tue, 25 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:00:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111804 A challenge to penalty was assessed on the footing of a confirmed duty demand, and the plea that clearances were provisional was not entertained because it had not been raised when the duty liability was originally decided. The Tribunal held that a ground attacking the validity of the duty confirmation cannot be introduced for the first time in subsequent penalty proceedings once the duty demand has attained finality. Penalty under Rule 96ZO(1) was therefore treated as maintainable, and interim relief was made conditional on a partial pre-deposit, with recovery stayed for the balance. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111804