Classification dispute on excise pre-deposit: existing payment and bank guarantee were treated as sufficient for stay.

A classification dispute over excise liability led the appellate forum to treat the existing deposit and bank guarantee as sufficient for stay purposes. Because a substantial amount had already been deposited and the penalty was prima facie contestable in a classification matter, no additional pre-deposit was considered necessary as a condition for hearing the appeal. Recovery of the remaining duty and penalty was therefore stayed at the interim stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether any further pre-deposit was required as a condition for hearing of the appeal, and whether recovery of the remaining duty and penalty should be stayed.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a classification dispute concerning the products in question, and a substantial amount had already been deposited pursuant to the appellate order, with a bank guarantee furnished for the balance. The claimed penalty also appeared prima facie contestable because the dispute was essentially one of classification. In these circumstances, the existing deposit and guarantee were treated as sufficient, and no additional deposit was considered necessary at the stay stage.

Conclusion: No further pre-deposit was directed, and recovery of the balance duty and penalty was stayed.

---