Appellant granted unconditional stay, relieved from depositing duty or penalty, bank guarantee released.

The Tribunal granted the appellant an unconditional stay order, relieving them from depositing duty or penalty. Despite the Revenue's repeated adjournment requests, the Tribunal released the bank guarantee in favor of the appellant, as the stay was not contingent upon it. The decision was influenced by the case's merits and pending Supreme Court rulings. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Request for adjournment by Revenue, Unconditional stay order, Release of bank guarantee

Request for adjournment by Revenue:
The case involved a repeated request for adjournment by the Revenue, citing the unavailability of a special counsel. The appellant strongly opposed the adjournment, highlighting the history of adjournments and the inconvenience caused. Despite the Revenue's efforts to contact the special counsel, no valid reason was provided for the unavailability. The appellant argued for the matter to proceed without further delay, pointing out the expenses incurred due to a bank guarantee and referencing relevant legal precedents supporting their position.

Unconditional stay order:
The Tribunal's previous order granted an unconditional stay to the appellant, relieving them from depositing any part of the duty or penalty. The decision was based on the merits of the case and the clarification from the DGCA, not solely on the existence of a bank guarantee. The appellant requested the release of the bank guarantee if the matter was adjourned. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the pending Supreme Court decisions, decided to release the bank guarantee, as the stay was not explicitly tied to its maintenance. The case was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings.

Release of bank guarantee:
The Tribunal, after reviewing the stay order and the circumstances, allowed the release of the bank guarantee held by the Revenue in favor of the appellant. This decision was based on the fact that the stay was granted based on the case's merits and not explicitly linked to the bank guarantee. As the Revenue sought a final hearing post the Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to release the bank guarantee. The matter was adjourned to a specified date for continuation.

---