JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. Shri P.B. Mukherjee, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that Stay Order passed by the Tribunal on 8.10.2001 directing the appellants to deposit the amount of duty has not been complied with by them. He however submits that the observation made by the Tribunal in the said order that due to non-availability of modvat credit on the basis of original invoices stands decided against the appellants in the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. – 2000 (117) ELT 571, the appellant does not (sic) are not correct inasmuch as the said decision is not applicable because the provisions of Rule 57G were amended w.e.f. June, 1998 and as such the ratio of the said decision would not apply. He submits that they have moved a Miscellaneous application also.
2. After carefully considering the submissions made I find that the issue raised by the learned Advocate is contentious and arguable and a final view can only be taken up at the time of disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal has already considered the submissions made by the appellants at the time of hearing the stay petition. I do not find any prima facie case. In this view of the matter the appellants should have deposited the amount in question and then raise all the pleas at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Inasmuch as the appellants have not complied with the order within the period given by the Tribunal, their appeal becomes liable to be dismissed. However in the interest of justice I extend the period by another week to deposit the amount in question. Appellants are directed to deposit the said amount by 7th December, 2001 and report compliance to the Tribunal on 11th December, 2001. Subject to ascertaining compliance, appeal itself would be taken up for final disposal on the said date. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated & pronounced in Court)