Affidavit of valuation remained valid where the underlying order imposed financial liability and justified court fee calculation.

An appellant seeking to withdraw an affidavit of valuation and restrict court fee to a fixed amount was refused where the civil appeals, in substance, challenged an order that confirmed monetary demands, interest and reversal of credit. On that footing, the affidavit of valuation was properly filed because the impugned order imposed a financial liability, and there was no legal basis to permit withdrawal merely on the characterisation of the appeal as being against the Registrar's order. The request to withdraw the affidavit of valuation was rejected, and the appeal against the Registrar's order was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could withdraw the affidavit of valuation and confine the court fee to the fixed amount on the ground that the appeal was only against the Registrar's order.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the Registrar's refusal to permit withdrawal of the affidavit of valuation. The operative portion of the impugned order showed that the CESTAT had confirmed monetary demands, interest, and reversal of credit, thereby imposing a financial liability on the appellant. In that situation, the affidavit of valuation accompanying the civil appeals was correctly filed and there was no legal basis to permit its withdrawal for the purpose of reducing the court fee to a fixed amount.

Conclusion: The request to withdraw the affidavit of valuation was rejected and the appeal against the Registrar's order was dismissed.

---