Modvat credit reversal distinguished from cash liability, and delay was condoned for good-faith pursuit of another forum.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant had pursued an alternate appellate forum in good faith. The Tribunal also clarified that cash pre-deposit could not be insisted upon where the impugned order required only reversal of Modvat credit and did not direct payment in cash. The stay petition was disposed of on that basis, reflecting a distinction between reversal of credit and cash liability for pre-deposit purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned; (ii) whether cash pre-deposit could be insisted upon when the impugned order required only reversal of Modvat credit.

Outcome: The delay was condoned on the ground that the appellant had pursued an alternate appellate forum in good faith. The stay petition was disposed of with the clarification that, as the impugned order did not require payment in cash, the Department could not insist on cash pre-deposit.

---