1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7478 OF 2009 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... Appellant. V/s. Union of India and others. ... Respondents. V.Sridharan, senior counsel with Taj Sangvhi i/b. PDS Legal for the appellant. P.S.Jetly with Rajinder Kumar for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 16th September 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused petition. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Jetly waives service for the respondents. Petition is taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 3. This petition is directed against the order dated 16th July, 2009 (Exh. A ) passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ( Tribunal for short) directing the petitioner to pre-deposit entire amount of duty in the sum of Rs.1,11,67,333/- (one crore eleven lakh sixty seven thousand three hundred thirty-three) along with interest thereon within eight weeks from the date of the order with direction to report compliance. Subject to 2 compliance of the said order within stipulated period, pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.25 lakh was to stand dispensed with and stay was to operate pending disposal of the appeal. Failure to comply with the aforesaid direction, stay was to stand, automatically, vacated and the appeal was to stand dismissed without further notice to the petitioner. 4. Without going into the factual matrix and rival submissions, we may mention that identical petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2nd September, 2009 being W.P.No.1477/2009 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India & another); wherein identical order was a subject matter of challenge and without going into the larger question, petition was decided. The following view was taken: 13. Having heard both parties, having perused the petition and including impugned order, it is not necessary to go into the larger question sought to be raised in the petition with respect to the changeability of duty since it would amount to pre- judging the issue. Suffice it to say that the instructions issued by the Board contained in the Excise Manual pressed into service by the petitioner ought to to have been given due consideration by the Tribunal when the same was brought to its notice. However, we do not find any reference to the said aspect of the matter in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. Solvency is beyond 3 doubt. The question sought to be raised in appeal, no doubt, needs serious consideration by the Tribunal, however, one cannot say that no prima facie; case was made out by the petitioner for complete waiver of the pre-deposit. As a matter of fact, as per the instructions of the Board, petitioner is exempted from furnishing any security. 14. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioner to execute a general bond with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner. 5. For the consideration recorded hereinabove, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order stands modified and the direction of pre-deposit of Rs.1,11,67,333/- stands substituted with that of general bond for the full amount of duty. The petitioner to execute the bond within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the Tribunal. Petition is partly allowed in terms of this order. Accordingly, rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)