Contradictory appellate orders justified waiver of pre-deposit and interim stay against recovery.

Contradictory appellate orders arising from the same original order justified interim protection, as the Tribunal found the later impugned order prima facie inconsistent with an earlier appellate order that had already set aside the penalty under Section 11AC. On the material placed, the appellant showed sufficient merit to seek protection against recovery. The stay application was therefore allowed, pre-deposit was waived, and operation of the impugned order was stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the impugned order in view of contradictory appellate orders arising from the same original order.

Analysis: The application was supported by the earlier appellate order that had already set aside the penalty under Section 11AC, and the subsequent order on the same original order was found to be prima facie inconsistent. The material placed before the Tribunal disclosed merit in the contention for interim protection.

Outcome: The application for stay was allowed, waiver of pre-deposit was granted, and operation of the impugned order was stayed.

---