https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88397 Prima facie duplication of the same invoice-based demand in separate notices, together with apparent time-bar under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, justified waiver of the balance pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal. The objection that the manufacturer's depot was not registered as a dealer was also treated as prima facie untenable. Only the surviving portion relating to endorsed invoices was kept protected, and the appellant was directed to keep Rs. one lakh unutilised in the Modvat account. en-us Sat, 04 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:34:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88397 Prima facie duplication of the same invoice-based demand in separate notices, together with apparent time-bar under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, justified waiver of the balance pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal. The objection that the manufacturer's depot was not registered as a dealer was also treated as prima facie untenable. Only the surviving portion relating to endorsed invoices was kept protected, and the appellant was directed to keep Rs. one lakh unutilised in the Modvat account. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 04 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88397