Arguable duty dispute and balance of convenience justified waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

An arguable dispute over duty demanded on components received under Chapter X justified interim protection where the appellant relied on destruction of goods and records in a fire accident and prior intimation to the department. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, so the duty pre-deposit was waived and recovery stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of duty deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a duty demand on components received under Chapter X procedure. The appellant relied on destruction of the goods and records in a fire accident and the intimation given to the department. The Tribunal found the issue to be arguable and held that the balance of convenience, in the circumstances of the case, favoured grant of interim relief.

Conclusion: The requirement of depositing the duty demand was waived and recovery of the demand was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute is arguable and the balance of convenience favours the applicant, pre-deposit of duty may be waived and recovery stayed pending appeal.

---