Pre-deposit and stay relief under excise law were denied for a Section 11D demand, while penalty waiver was granted.

Pre-deposit and stay principles were applied to a demand raised under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the amount was treated as outside the scope of the pre-deposit relief sought; interim stay of recovery was therefore declined for that demand. The penalty imposed under Rule 209A read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined separately, and complete interim waiver with stay of recovery was granted for the penalty. The document thus distinguishes between the treatment of the Section 11D demand and the penalty for purposes of interim relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether pre-deposit could be ordered and recovery of the amount demanded under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be stayed; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was to be fully waived and stayed.

Issue (i): whether pre-deposit could be ordered and recovery of the amount demanded under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be stayed.

Analysis: The application was considered on the basis of the relevant provisions governing pre-deposit and the nature of the demand raised under Section 11D. The amount demanded under Section 11D was treated as not falling within the scope of the pre-deposit provision invoked for stay of recovery, and on a prima facie assessment no case was made out for ordering pre-deposit or staying recovery of that amount.

Conclusion: No pre-deposit was directed and stay of recovery of the amount under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was declined.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was to be fully waived and stayed.

Analysis: The penalty imposed under Rule 209A read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was separately examined, and the Tribunal granted complete relief in respect of the penalty at the interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: Full waiver of the penalty was granted and recovery was stayed.

Final Conclusion: The application resulted in denial of interim relief as to the Section 11D demand, but complete interim protection was granted in respect of the penalty.

---