Jurisdiction over abatement claims barred recovery where the Assistant Commissioner lacked authority and claims remained pending.

Pending abatement claims before the jurisdictional Commissioner justified interim protection against recovery, because the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide those claims and any order passed by him on that issue was non est. As the abatement claims remained unresolved, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted in respect of the duty demand, and the matter was directed to regular hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for duty warranted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in view of pending abatement claims, and whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide those abatement claims.

Analysis: The abatement claims were noted to be pending before the jurisdictional Commissioner. It was observed that, under the relevant rules, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with such claims and any order passed by him on that aspect was non est. In view of the pendency of the claims, interim protection against recovery was considered appropriate.

Outcome: Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted for the duty demand; the appeal was listed for regular hearing.

---