Stay of operation refused where evidence showed duty incidence was not passed on and pricing parity supported refund credit.

Stay of operation was refused where the Revenue failed to show a sufficient ground to suspend the order allowing the respondent's appeal and directing refund credit. The Tribunal noted that evidence before the Commissioner had already been accepted to show that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. It also considered the parity of prices with other EOUs and the view that depreciation on imported capital goods would not affect pricing. On that material, no basis for interim relief was established and the stay application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether stay of operation of the order allowing the respondent's appeal and directing refund credit could be granted.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that evidence had been led before the Commissioner to show that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, and that such evidence had been accepted. It also took into account the parity of prices with other EOUs and the view that depreciation on the imported capital goods would not affect pricing. On the material before it, the Revenue had not made out a sufficient ground for stay.

Conclusion: Stay of operation was refused and the application was dismissed.

---