Pre-deposit compliance requires cash or PLA payment, and RG 23-A Part II debit was not accepted as valid deposit.

In a classification dispute, the Tribunal treated the stay-order pre-deposit as requiring payment in cash or through PLA, not a debit in RG 23-A Part II. Debit through Modvat account was therefore not accepted as proper compliance with the pre-deposit direction. The Tribunal granted the appellants two weeks to make the required deposit, and warned that failure to do so would result in withdrawal of the stay order and expose the appeal to dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had complied with the pre-deposit direction in the stay order by debiting the amount in RG 23-A Part II instead of depositing it in cash or through PLA, and the consequence of non-compliance.

Analysis: The dispute related to classification and not to Modvat credit. For such a matter, the directed amount was required to be deposited in cash or through PLA. Debit in RG 23-A Part II was not treated as proper compliance with the stay order. Time was granted to make the required deposit, failing which the stay order would stand withdrawn and the appeal would become liable to dismissal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the pre-deposit direction had not been properly complied with and directed fresh compliance within two weeks.

---