Supplementary invoices and duty credit: no prima facie bar to credit, so further pre-deposit and recovery were stayed.

Supplementary invoices issued for differential duty arising from an incorrect duty computation and undervaluation were not treated as prima facie ineligible documents for availing credit. On the material before CESTAT, there was no prima facie basis to reject the credit claim at the interim stage, so insistence on further pre-deposit was unwarranted. The appellant was therefore granted waiver of further pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending final hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the prima facie stage, credit taken on supplementary invoices issued for differential duty could be treated as ineligible so as to justify insistence on further pre-deposit and recovery pending appeal.

Analysis: The supplementary invoices were stated to have arisen from differential duty payable because of an incorrect computation of duty under a wrong formula, resulting in an undervaluation of the assessable value. On the material placed before the Tribunal, there was no prima facie basis to treat those supplementary invoices as documents incapable of supporting duty credit. In that situation, the demand for further pre-deposit was not warranted pending final hearing.

Conclusion: The credit issue was not found to be prima facie unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to waiver of further pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

---