Pre-deposit waived where the stay order ignored the core valuation dispute and the appeal had to be heard on merits.

A stay order that did not address the specific contention on admissibility of flag allowance in the assessable value was treated as inadequate. As the assessee had raised a substantive issue already accepted in an earlier appellate order directing reconsideration, the Tribunal held that the appeal should be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit of the disputed duty. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal without requiring any deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be heard without insisting on pre-deposit of the disputed duty, and whether the stay order could be sustained when it did not deal with the specific issue raised.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised a substantive contention regarding admissibility of flag allowance in the assessable value, and that an earlier order of the same appellate authority had already accepted that contention and directed reconsideration. It further noted that the stay order under challenge was in stereotyped form and did not address the issue raised in the stay application. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and require the appeal to be heard on merits without insisting on deposit.

Conclusion: The requirement of pre-deposit was waived for the purpose of hearing the appeal, and the matter was sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal of the appeal without insisting on any deposit.

---