Pre-deposit modification under concessional customs duty relief granted; larger-bench reference alone could not reopen the earlier stay direction.

The tribunal declined to reopen an earlier stay direction on the ground that identical matters had been referred to a larger bench, because that issue had already been considered and no fresh basis for modification was shown. It then applied the Supreme Court ruling on concessional additional customs duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus to hold that the assessee had a prima facie case for the concessional rate. On that basis, the duty demand was treated as materially reduced and the pre-deposit was reassessed, resulting in a modified stay order with a reduced pre-deposit requirement of Rs. 60 lakhs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier stay order directing pre-deposit could be modified on the ground that identical matters had been referred to a larger bench and had led to grant of unconditional stay in other cases; (ii) whether, in light of the Supreme Court ruling on concessional additional customs duty, the amount directed to be pre-deposited required reduction.

Issue (i): the prayer for modification was founded on the plea that reference to a larger bench in identical matters justified unconditional stay. However, the earlier stay order had already considered that aspect, and no fresh basis was shown to reopen that direction.

Conclusion: the pre-deposit order was not modified on this ground.

Issue (ii): the Supreme Court ruling on eligibility to concessional additional customs duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17/03/2012 supported the assessee's prima facie entitlement to the concessional rate. On that basis, the duty demand was treated as substantially reduced and the pre-deposit amount was reassessed accordingly.

Conclusion: the assessee was held entitled to a reduced pre-deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs, and the stay order was modified to that extent.

Final Conclusion: the modification application succeeded only in part, with the pre-deposit requirement substantially reduced on the basis of the concessional customs duty entitlement, while the larger-bench ground was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: where a later binding ruling establishes prima facie entitlement to concessional customs duty, the stay/pre-deposit amount may be correspondingly modified, but a ground already considered in the original stay order does not, by itself, justify reopening that direction.

---