Waiver of pre-deposit and remand were ordered where cross-examination and limitation objections were not properly considered.

Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted where the applicant showed that inputs were kept in a separate godown with prior intimation to the department and that this explanation was not effectively rebutted. The authority also noted that the request to cross-examine panch witnesses had not been considered and that the limitation objection was left unanswered by the appellate authority. On these facts, the allegation of clandestine removal was not examined sufficiently to justify denial of interim relief, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the applicant and reviewing the documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration on the grounds of prima facie case, denial of cross-examination, limitation, and the treatment of the godown as part of the factory premises.

Analysis: The applicant produced material showing that the inputs were stored in a separate godown with prior intimation to the department and that the department had not effectively rebutted this explanation. The record also showed that the request for cross-examination of panch witnesses was not considered and that the limitation objection was not dealt with by the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the claim of clandestine removal was not examined in a manner sufficient to deny interim relief, and the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority after hearing the applicant and considering the documents.

Conclusion: The applicant succeeded in obtaining waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after due hearing.

---