https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243906 Recall of the earlier dismissal was allowed because the Tribunal found sufficient cause to restore the appeal and the related miscellaneous application to their original numbers. The stay order directing pre-deposit was not modified, as the plea of limitation was treated as fact-intensive and reserved for final hearing, while the record disclosed a prima facie case against the assessee, including withdrawal of provisional assessment, non-furnishing of promised documents, and valuation based on cost analysis under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Only the time for compliance with the pre-deposit direction was extended. en-us Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243906 Recall of the earlier dismissal was allowed because the Tribunal found sufficient cause to restore the appeal and the related miscellaneous application to their original numbers. The stay order directing pre-deposit was not modified, as the plea of limitation was treated as fact-intensive and reserved for final hearing, while the record disclosed a prima facie case against the assessee, including withdrawal of provisional assessment, non-furnishing of promised documents, and valuation based on cost analysis under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Only the time for compliance with the pre-deposit direction was extended. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243906