https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209231 The Tribunal held that the Revenue's challenge to an order keeping proceedings in abeyance pending decision on an abatement claim was not sustainable. The lower appellate authority had followed an earlier remand direction for denovo consideration, and that unchallenged direction had attained finality. Applying the Board's circular, the Commissioner was required first to decide eligibility for abatement; where that claim remained pending for an extended period, duty recovery was not to be insisted upon in advance. No infirmity was found in maintaining the matter in abeyance, and the impugned order was sustained. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209231 The Tribunal held that the Revenue's challenge to an order keeping proceedings in abeyance pending decision on an abatement claim was not sustainable. The lower appellate authority had followed an earlier remand direction for denovo consideration, and that unchallenged direction had attained finality. Applying the Board's circular, the Commissioner was required first to decide eligibility for abatement; where that claim remained pending for an extended period, duty recovery was not to be insisted upon in advance. No infirmity was found in maintaining the matter in abeyance, and the impugned order was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209231