Pre-deposit waiver for Rule 6 demand quantification dispute where prior deposit was held sufficient for appeal hearing.

At the stay stage, the Tribunal treated the dispute as one of quantification of demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules rather than a substantive liability issue. As the amount already deposited was considered sufficient for hearing the appeal, the appellant's challenge to the manner of valuing trading activity was relevant only for pre-deposit purposes. On that basis, further insistence on the remaining duty, interest and penalty deposit was found unnecessary, and waiver of the balance pre-deposit was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining duty, interest and penalty when the dispute at the stay stage concerned only quantification of demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis: The amount already deposited was found sufficient for the hearing of the appeal. The dispute was treated as one of computation of demand, and the appellant's contention regarding the manner of valuing trading activity under Rule 6 was considered only for the purpose of pre-deposit. On that basis, the Tribunal held that insisting on further pre-deposit was not necessary.

Conclusion: The remaining pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty was waived and the stay petition was allowed.

---