Pre-deposit waiver for disputed credit sustained where transferred capital goods were used for intended purpose despite document defects.

Centrally procured capital goods transferred from a Circle Office to a subordinate formation were treated as sufficient, at least prima facie, to challenge denial of credit where the goods were received and used for the intended purpose. The Tribunal noted that no separate legal entities were involved and that the objection arose only from technical defects in the purchase and transfer documents, including the absence of the subordinate formation's name and dealer registration details. On that basis, it found a prima facie case for waiver of dues, waived pre-deposit, and stayed recovery until disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the disputed credit, where capital goods procured in the name of the Circle Office were transferred to a subordinate formation that had received and used them for the intended purpose.

Analysis: The order records that there were no two legal entities involved and that the dispute arose only because the original purchase documents were not in the name of the subordinate formation and the transferred documents did not show the registration of the Circle Office as dealer. The Tribunal treated the transfer of centrally procured capital goods to a subordinate formation as sufficient, at least prima facie, to question the denial of credit on that technical ground.

Outcome: The appellant was held to have made out a prima facie case for waiver of the dues, pre-deposit was waived, and recovery was stayed till disposal of the appeal.

---