Pre-deposit and stay extension under the statutory scheme were sustained after interim protection lapsed and acquiescence was found.

Interim stay on duty recovery lapsed when the appeal was not decided within the statutory period under the governing pre-deposit scheme, so continued protection could not be demanded as of right. The assessee's withdrawal of the earlier writ petition challenging the pre-deposit direction was treated as acquiescence in the deposit requirement, reinforcing the Tribunal's view that pre-deposit remained payable. On those facts, no error was found in the Tribunal's discretion in refusing extension of stay and directing pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining extension of stay and directing pre-deposit of duty in view of the statutory scheme governing pre-deposit and the assessee's conduct.

Analysis: The interim protection earlier granted had ceased to have effect when the appeal was not disposed of within the stipulated period under the governing provision. The assessee had also withdrawn the earlier writ petition challenging the pre-deposit direction, which the Tribunal treated as acquiescence in the requirement to deposit the amount. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was entitled to consider that the assessee could not insist on continued stay and that pre-deposit under the statutory scheme remained payable. No error was found in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion on the facts.

Conclusion: The direction requiring pre-deposit and refusing extension of stay was upheld, against the assessee.

---