Ar arguable limitation dispute can justify relaxing full pre-deposit and staying recovery pending merits adjudication.

An arguable limitation challenge, including whether the extended period was validly invoked and whether suppression of facts or evasion existed, justified relaxation of the full pre-deposit requirement. The Court noted that the departmental audit had earlier examined the records without finding discrepancy, which supported the appellant's case for adjudication on merits. The pre-deposit condition was therefore modified, with deposit of 50% of the duty after adjustment of amounts already paid, and recovery of the remaining duty and interest stayed on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition requiring pre-deposit of the entire duty and interest should be modified and stay granted against recovery of the remaining demand.

Analysis: The appellant had raised an arguable case on the question of limitation, particularly because the departmental audit had already examined the records earlier and found no discrepancy. The challenge also involved whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked and whether there had been suppression of facts or evasion. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have granted relief against the full pre-deposit condition, as the appeal raised substantial issues requiring adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The condition of depositing the entire duty and interest was modified, and the appellant was directed to deposit 50% of the duty after adjusting the amount already paid, upon which recovery of the remaining duty and interest would remain stayed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal raises an arguable issue on limitation and related liability questions, the pre-deposit condition may be moderated and recovery stayed to the extent ordered by the Court.

---