INDIAN TRANSFORMERS LTD. Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. P.V. Madhavan Nambiar, Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government who appears for the respondents on receipt of a copy of this original petition.

(2.) AGAINST the order Ext. P -l which was confirmed in appeal by the order Ext. P -2 the petitioner has filed a second appeal before the first respondent Tribunal A copy of the appeal is Ext. P -3. The petitioner has moved an application for dispensing with the prior deposit of the duty payable as per Ext. P -l, That was allowed conditionally by the order Ext. P -5. The petitioner was called upon to make payment of an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - subject to which the pre -deposit of the balance demanded was to stand dispensed with. Petitioner has complied with the direction in Ext. P -5 and therefore the appeal is to be heard on its merits.

(3.) I considered a similar matter, O.P. No. 1039 of 1989 wherein I held that waiver of deposit does not tantamount to stay of collection of the duty payable. However and having regard to the fact that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that it also operates as stay, I granted two months time to the assessee concerned in that case to apply to the Tribunal for stay and meanwhile stayed the collection of the amount demanded. The same procedure has to be followed in this case as well.