https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268663 At the stay stage, the Tribunal considered whether pre-deposit should be waived where the duty demand was based on alleged suppression, overlapping notices, extended limitation, and estimated production derived from assumed chromium content and recovery percentages. It found a prima facie case that part of the demand overlapped with an earlier notice, and that the extended period was not clearly invocable because both proceedings rested on the same broad allegations. The Tribunal also noted that the demand depended on assumptions and limited records rather than chemical testing or tangible evidence of clandestine removal, so recovery was stayed pending appeal. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268663 At the stay stage, the Tribunal considered whether pre-deposit should be waived where the duty demand was based on alleged suppression, overlapping notices, extended limitation, and estimated production derived from assumed chromium content and recovery percentages. It found a prima facie case that part of the demand overlapped with an earlier notice, and that the extended period was not clearly invocable because both proceedings rested on the same broad allegations. The Tribunal also noted that the demand depended on assumptions and limited records rather than chemical testing or tangible evidence of clandestine removal, so recovery was stayed pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268663