Tribunal modifies stay order, allows appeal without pre-deposit. Bank guarantee accepted. Revenue confirms coverage.

The Tribunal modified the stay order for deposit amount, allowing M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. to proceed with the appeal without the pre-deposit condition. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's arguments based on a favorable decision in another case and a High Court order requiring a bank guarantee, which covered the disputed duty amount. The Revenue confirmed the bank guarantee covered the disputed duty amount, leading to the modification of the stay order. The appellant's miscellaneous application was allowed, ensuring the validity of the bank guarantee throughout the Tribunal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Modification of stay order for deposit amount.
2. Bank guarantee coverage of disputed duty amount.
3. Dispensing with pre-deposit condition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd., was directed to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs by an earlier stay order. The appellant filed a modification application stating that they had already deposited Rs. 89.55 lakhs out of the total duty demand of Rs. 1.54 crores before the adjudication order. The Tribunal's direction to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs was based on the observation that the appellant's case lacked merit. The appellant referred to a favorable decision in another case to support their claim. The appellant also highlighted a High Court order requiring a bank guarantee for the entire liability of Rs. 11.74 crores, which they had provided, covering the amount in the present appeal. The Tribunal considered these arguments and agreed to modify the stay order.

2. The Revenue sought time to verify if the bank guarantee of Rs. 11.74 crores included the disputed duty amount of Rs. 1.54 crores. The Revenue later confirmed that the bank guarantee indeed covered the disputed duty amount. Based on this clarification, the Tribunal decided to modify the stay order and dispensed with the pre-deposit condition. However, it was specified that the bank guarantee must remain active during the Tribunal proceedings, ensuring the disputed duty amount's coverage.

3. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's miscellaneous application in the mentioned terms, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellant regarding the modification of the stay order and the dispensing of the pre-deposit condition. The decision was based on the clarification provided by the Revenue regarding the coverage of the disputed duty amount by the bank guarantee. This resolution ensured that the appellant could proceed with the appeal without the burden of the pre-deposit condition, maintaining the bank guarantee's validity throughout the proceedings before the Tribunal.

---