Court addresses objections on jurisdiction, party name change, valuation dispute; appeal admitted with conditions.

The Court addressed objections raised by the Revenue on jurisdiction, party name change, and valuation dispute. It found the appeal maintainable despite the cause of action partly arising outside its jurisdiction. The objection on party name change was dismissed due to a filed affidavit. The valuation dispute was rejected, emphasizing the limitation contention's lack of merit. The Court admitted the appeal on the proviso to Section 11A(1) application, directing the appellant to deposit arrears and secure the balance by bank guarantee, with penalty recovery stayed. Instructions were given to both parties for compliance.

---

---

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of the Court, Change in party name, Valuation dispute, Application of Section 11A(1) proviso

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court addressed the objection raised by the Revenue regarding the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Bench. The Court noted that the order-in-appeal was passed by the Tribunal under the Principal Seat's jurisdiction, making the appeal maintainable despite part of the cause of action arising within the Court's jurisdiction.

Regarding the change in party name, it was contended that the name of the party differed from the party before the appellate authority. An affidavit was filed indicating the transfer of a division to the appellants after demerger, leading the Court to find this objection not maintainable.

The third objection pertained to valuation, with the appellants not disputing the Tribunal's valuation but raising an issue regarding the demand being barred by limitation. The Court found this objection devoid of merit, emphasizing the rejection of the contention on limitation.

The Court admitted the appeal on the question of law related to the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A(1) by the CESTAT in the given circumstances. The appellant was directed to deposit arrears within the limitation period and secure the balance amount by bank guarantee in favor of Respondent No. 1, with the penalty recovery stayed.

Respondent No. 1 was instructed to calculate the amount due within the normal period and inform the appellant accordingly. The appellant was required to deposit the specified amount within the given timeline. Respondent waived service in the matter.

---