Technical irregularity in PLA transfer on de-bonding did not justify pre-deposit or recovery where cash refund remained available.

Transfer of the balance amount in PLA on de-bonding of a 100% EOU unit was treated as a technical irregularity rather than a substantive violation, because the amount could otherwise have been claimed as cash refund and then redeposited in the other account, with no time limit for seeking such refund. On that basis, the interim view was that confirmation of demand or penalty was not justified at the pre-deposit stage. Waiver of pre-deposit was therefore granted and recovery of the dues was stayed until disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the demand and penalty arising from transfer of the balance amount in PLA on de-bonding of a 100% EOU unit.

Analysis: The balance lying in PLA could have been obtained as refund in cash and then deposited in the other account. There was no time limit for claiming refund of the balance in PLA. On these facts, any violation was only technical and did not justify confirmation of demand or penalty at the interim stage.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was granted and recovery of the dues was stayed till disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A purely technical irregularity in transfer of balance PLA amount, where refund in cash was otherwise available without time limit, does not warrant pre-deposit or recovery at the interim stage.

---