Appellant granted stay, bank guarantee released, Revenue directed to comply. Stay order prevails.

The Tribunal granted the appellant an unconditional stay without reference to the bank guarantee. The appellant requested the release of the bank guarantee, which was accepted, and the Revenue was directed to comply. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the bank guarantee's validity in relation to the stay order, emphasizing that the stay prevailed over any undertaking made by the appellant. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to release the bank guarantee within a month, emphasizing compliance with its directives.

---

---

Issues:
1. Release of bank guarantee without reference to conditions.
2. Refund of margin money for cancellation of bank guarantees.
3. Rectification of mistake in the interim order regarding bank guarantee.
4. Consideration of bank guarantee in granting stay order.
5. Validity of bank guarantee in relation to stay order.
6. Pre-deposit condition and bank guarantee.
7. Compliance with tribunal's order to release bank guarantee.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal, in an interim order, noted that an unconditional stay was granted to the appellant without reference to the bank guarantee. The appellant requested the release of the bank guarantee, which was accepted, and the Revenue was directed to comply.

2. The appellant contended that they had requested the refund of margin money for bank guarantee cancellation, but there was no response from the Commissioner. The bank guarantees had expired, and the Commissioner had not taken any action for refund. The appellant sought appropriate directions for the refund.

3. The Revenue filed a Misc. application for rectification of a mistake in the interim order, arguing that the bank guarantee should not be released as it was executed during the investigation and the appellant had undertaken to keep it alive. The Tribunal considered the application but found no merit in the Revenue's argument.

4. The Revenue argued that the stay order was granted after the advocate stated that Revenue's interest was protected by the bank guarantee. However, the Tribunal observed that the stay was granted on its merits, not based on the bank guarantee, and there was no direction to keep the bank guarantee alive.

5. The Tribunal reiterated that the stay order prevailed over any undertaking regarding the bank guarantee made by the appellant during the investigation. The fact that the bank guarantee was executed with an undertaking did not support the Revenue's case.

6. The Tribunal clarified that it was not deciding on the validity of bank guarantees in other matters, as the stay petition had already been decided without such directions. The Tribunal could not modify the previous order.

7. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's Misc. application and directed the Commissioner to release the bank guarantee within a month, as previously ordered, emphasizing the need for compliance with the tribunal's directives.

---