Limitation and pre-deposit relief in customs dispute: appeal treated as timely, with stay granted on a strong prima facie case.

The appeal was held within time because the date of communication of the impugned order was accepted as 14-3-2001, there being no material from the department to prove an earlier communication. On the stay application, the demand stemmed from denial of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. on alleged inadmissible Modvat credit, and the transferee of advance licences was found to have a strong prima facie case on limitation based on earlier Tribunal decisions. As a result, the limitation objection was rejected and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, together with stay of recovery, was granted pending disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and, if not, whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The communication date of the impugned order was accepted as 14-3-2001 in the absence of material from the department to establish an earlier communication, and the appeal was therefore treated as filed within time. On the stay request, the demand arose from denial of the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. on the allegation of inadmissible Modvat credit. The appellant, being a transferee of advance licences, was held to have a strong prima facie case on limitation in view of the earlier Tribunal decisions relied upon.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the appellant was granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty with stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal.

---