https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205351 A prima facie case for stay was rejected because the appellants failed to show that their product and manufacturing basis were materially the same as in the Himtaj classification decisions; those rulings were treated as fact-specific and not automatically applicable. On limitation, filing a declaration did not bar the extended period where the declaration was incomplete or incorrect, particularly in the presence of suppression and clandestine removal. An unretracted statement noting absent stock accounts, inadequate clearance records, and separate invoices supported the inference of suppression. The stay application was therefore rejected and compliance with the duty demand was directed. en-us Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205351 A prima facie case for stay was rejected because the appellants failed to show that their product and manufacturing basis were materially the same as in the Himtaj classification decisions; those rulings were treated as fact-specific and not automatically applicable. On limitation, filing a declaration did not bar the extended period where the declaration was incomplete or incorrect, particularly in the presence of suppression and clandestine removal. An unretracted statement noting absent stock accounts, inadequate clearance records, and separate invoices supported the inference of suppression. The stay application was therefore rejected and compliance with the duty demand was directed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205351