Pre-deposit waiver in Cenvat credit stay proceedings required further deposit where prima facie material protected Revenue interests.

Stay proceedings concerned a claim for waiver of pre-deposit and suspension of recovery in a Cenvat credit dispute under Rule 16 relating to returned goods allegedly received for repairs. The record was considered sufficient to show that some consignments for which credit had been taken had not in fact been returned, creating a substantial prima facie case against the appellant. Because the amount already deposited was found inadequate to protect Revenue interests, the Tribunal directed an additional deposit as a condition for granting waiver of the balance pre-deposit and staying recovery of the remaining demand, interest and penalty until disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending the appeal.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a demand of Cenvat credit taken under Rule 16 on the claim that returned goods had been received back for repairs. The available material was found sufficient to indicate that some of the consignments in respect of which credit had been taken had not in fact been returned. Since the amount already deposited was considered inadequate to protect the Revenue's interest, further deposit was directed as a condition for waiver of the remaining pre-deposit and for stay of recovery.

Conclusion: Waiver of the balance pre-deposit was granted only on deposit of the additional amount directed, and recovery of the remaining demand, interest, and penalty was stayed till disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In stay proceedings, where the record discloses a substantial prima facie case against the appellant and the amount already deposited is insufficient to safeguard Revenue interests, the Tribunal may insist on a further pre-deposit before granting waiver and stay.

---