Pre-deposit for interim stay where exemption or abatement claims lack documentary support in appeal proceedings.

A pre-deposit can be made a condition for interim protection where a claim to exemption or abatement is not supported by sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal held that the option for the composition scheme could not be treated as exercised without written proof, and that a works contractor claiming abatement remains subject to evidentiary scrutiny. It therefore directed the appellant to make a partial pre-deposit, and on compliance stayed recovery of the balance demand during the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant should be directed to make a pre-deposit and whether recovery of the balance demand should be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

Analysis: The appellant sought relief on the footing that the option for the composition scheme need not be exercised in writing and, in the alternative, that abatement under the relevant notification should be allowed. The Tribunal found that the option could not be treated as exercised without documentary evidence and that, in the case of a works contractor claiming abatement, scrutiny of evidence could not be ruled out. In view of the rival submissions and the amount already deposited, the Tribunal considered an interim pre-deposit appropriate.

Conclusion: The appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 30 lakhs within eight weeks, and on compliance the recovery of the balance demand was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted only upon partial compliance by way of pre-deposit, and the appeal remained pending on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim stay against recovery may be made conditional upon a substantial pre-deposit where the claim for exemption or abatement is not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.

---