Penalty stay refused where unexplained stock shortages and contemporaneous records failed to justify waiver pending appeal.

Stay and waiver of penalty were refused where the Tribunal relied on the panchnama, the presence of the appellant's officers during the visit, and the absence of any contemporaneous explanation for shortages in inputs and finished goods. The cited precedents were distinguished because they concerned clandestine manufacture, not shortages in recorded stock. The plea of financial hardship was not supported by sufficient grounds, so the appellant was directed to deposit the entire penalty within ten weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether stay and waiver of the penalty imposed under the impugned order should be granted pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted the panchnama, the presence of the appellant's officers at the time of visit, and the absence of contemporaneous explanation for the shortages in inputs and finished goods. It also distinguished the cited precedents as dealing with clandestine manufacture and not with shortages in recorded stock. The plea of financial effect was not supported by sufficient grounds.

Outcome: Stay of the penalty was refused and the appellant was directed to deposit the entire penalty amount within ten weeks.

---