Prima facie case against extended limitation supported waiver of pre-deposit and stay where disclosure was already on record.

Disclosure of the intended use of furnace oil in the licence application, together with the Department's processing of the application, grant of licence and issuance of CT-2 certificates, supported a strong prima facie case that the demand was time-barred and that suppression was not established for invoking the extended period. On that basis, the Tribunal treated the assessee as having made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in view of the plea that the demand was barred by limitation and that there was no suppression of facts.

Analysis: The application for L6 licence had disclosed that furnace oil was required for generation of steam and electricity, and the request for nil duty treatment had been placed before the Department. The Department processed the application, granted the licence, and issued CT-2 certificates. On these facts, the Tribunal found that the assessee had shown a strong prima facie case on limitation and that the plea of suppression for invoking the extended period was not established at this stage.

Conclusion: The requirement of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty was waived and recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has disclosed the relevant use of goods and the departmental record itself supports that disclosure, a strong prima facie case exists against invoking the extended period for the purpose of insisting on pre-deposit.

---