Appellant's Deposit Accepted with Delay Condoned: Ensuring Compliance with Stay Orders

The appellant in Stay Application No. E/S/2933/2010 in Appeal No. E/3158/2010 (SM) was directed to deposit Rs. 48,736/- but deposited Rs. 2,52,717/- with a delay. Despite a typographical error in the stay order, the deposit was accepted, and the delay was condoned. In Stay Application No. E/S/2939/2010 in Appeal No. E/3161/2010, the appellant's deposit of Rs. 2,52,717/- was allowed with full waiver despite the typographical error. The judgment ensured compliance with the stay orders by accepting the deposits and condoning the delays.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stay application No. E/S/2933/2010 in appeal No. E/3158/2010 (SM)
2. Stay application No. E/S/2939/2010 in appeal No. E/3161/2010

Analysis:
1. Stay Application No. E/S/2933/2010 in Appeal No. E/3158/2010 (SM):
The appellant was directed to deposit the entire duty amount within four weeks for this appeal. The amount involved was Rs. 48,736/-. The appellant deposited Rs. 2,52,717/-, albeit with a delay of twenty days. The Commissioner confirmed the deposit but noted a typographical error in the stay order, where the stay application numbers were interchanged. It was observed that the pre-deposit should have been ordered for the other appeal, E/3161/2010, where full waiver was granted. Despite the typographical error, since the amount was deposited and not in dispute, the delay was condoned, and the stay order was considered complied with.

2. Stay Application No. E/S/2939/2010 in Appeal No. E/3161/2010:
The stay application for this appeal, involving Rs. 2,52,717/-, was allowed, granting full waiver. The confusion arose due to the typographical error in the stay order, which mentioned the wrong application numbers for the respective appeals. The Commissioner confirmed the deposit and acknowledged the error. The appellant was allowed to file a ROM, but the stay order was considered complied with due to the deposit made, with the condonation of the delay in payment.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of stay applications in two appeals, highlighting a typographical error in the stay order that led to confusion in pre-deposit amounts. Despite the error, the deposit made by the appellant was accepted, and the delay in payment was condoned, ensuring compliance with the stay orders.

---