Prima facie stay granted on duty demand where fire-destroyed goods were said to remain unmarketable

A prima facie case for stay was found where the disputed duty demand related to goods destroyed in a fire, and the appellant contended that the goods had remained in manufacture and had not attained marketable stage. The challenged order did not satisfactorily address that contention on a prima facie view. Given the destruction of the goods, immediate deposit would have caused unwarranted financial burden, while no real prejudice to revenue was shown at that stage. The duty demand was therefore waived pending disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for stay of the duty demand and waiver of the amount demanded pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The disputed duty demand arose from goods destroyed in a fire, and the appellant's central contention was that the goods were still in process of manufacture and had not reached a marketable stage. The order under challenge did not, on a prima facie view, deal with that specific contention in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances, and considering that the goods had already been destroyed, insisting on immediate deposit would cause unwarranted financial burden, while no real prejudice to revenue was shown at that stage.

Conclusion: A prima facie case was made out for stay, and the demand amount was waived till disposal of the appeal.

---