Blanket stay of Tribunal order refused where Revenue showed no prejudice and assessee offered indemnity and statutory interest

A blanket stay of a CESTAT order at the Revenue's instance was declined because the Court found no material prejudice to the Revenue and noted that the factual record, including the absence of a rejoinder, an existing sanction order in one matter, and the assessee's offer to furnish indemnity and pay duty with statutory interest if the Revenue succeeded, did not justify overriding the Tribunal's order. The Court also held that the Revenue could not equate its stay request with the assessee's distinct applications before the Tribunal. The stay request was rejected and the notice of motion failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a blanket stay of the CESTAT order should be granted at the instance of the Revenue pending the appeals.

Analysis: The request for stay was examined against the factual position set out in the reply affidavit, including the absence of any rejoinder, the existence of a sanction order already passed in one matter, and the assessee's willingness to furnish an indemnity and to pay duty with statutory interest if the Revenue ultimately succeeded. The Court found no material to show prejudice to the Revenue and held that the Revenue could not equate its stay request with the distinct motions filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. On that basis, a blanket stay of the Tribunal's order was not justified.

Conclusion: The request for stay was rejected and the Notice of Motion failed.

---