Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether recovery proceedings could be pursued despite the Tribunal's stay order waiving pre-deposit on the stipulated condition and whether the consequential departmental direction to deposit the disputed amount was liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The Tribunal had already waived pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty subject to deposit of Rs. 80,000, and the condition had been complied with. A waiver of pre-deposit operates as a stay of recovery of the balance demand under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The departmental direction requiring deposit of the disputed amount was therefore inconsistent with the subsisting stay order.
Conclusion: The direction to deposit the disputed amount was quashed, and recovery of the stayed demand could not be pursued.