Maximum retail price consistency in the same market justified partial pre-deposit and conditional stay of recovery.

A prima facie view was taken that different maximum retail prices could not be adopted for goods sold in the same area, supporting the departmental stand at the stay stage. On that basis, partial financial compliance was required before interim protection could extend to the disputed duty and penalty. The appellant was directed to make a partial deposit within four weeks, and stay of recovery, together with waiver of pre-deposit, was granted only for the balance amount subject to compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant should be directed to make a partial pre-deposit and whether stay of recovery should be granted for the balance demand and penalty in the pending appeal.

Analysis: The order records a prima facie view that the departmental stand was correct for the purpose of the stay application, since different maximum retail prices could not be adopted for goods sold in the same area. On that basis, partial financial compliance was required before the balance demand could be protected.

Outcome: The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 30,000 within four weeks, and stay and waiver of pre-deposit were granted for the balance duty and penalty subject to compliance.

---