Neo Sack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

1. the stay applications are in relation to the duty demand of over rs. 24 lakhs and penalties.2. the appellant manufacturer has already deposited rs. 5 lakhs. about the remaining duty demand, the submission of the learned counsel is that about rs. 12 lakhs relate to the exported goods. it is being pointed out that revenue has made an error in treating the invoices issued to the merchant exporter, in whose account exports were made directly from the factory were different supplies. a perusal of the record shows that the export invoices gave the name of the merchant exporter also. the same correlation is found in the invoices issued to the merchant exporter also. the appellants' explanations, prima facie, has merit.3. in regard to the remaining amount of demand, the submission is that by an error, computer generated duplicate invoices. it is being pointed out that in all particulars, the two sets of invoices tally. the submission of the learned counsel is that buyers in these transactions are manufacturers and there is no evidence about double supplies. it is, therefore, his contention that the explanation about computer error was required to be allowed. there is, prima facie merit in this explanation also.4. in view of the foregoing, deposit already made is sufficient for the purpose of hearing of the appeals. the requirement for the remaining deposits is waived and recovery stayed till disposal of the appeals.