ORDER : A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.(Oral) - Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondent waives notice. Taken up for final disposal by consent. 3. This petition takes exception to the order, dated 25-2-2013, passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in ST/Stay/800/2012 in Appeal No. ST/369/2012, Annexure P-7. The order passed by the Tribunal reads thus : "To grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, we direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 3 lakh (Rupees three lakh) by 15-3-2013 and produce a copy of challan before Commissioner (Appeals) by 31-3-2013 with an application to fix date of hearing on merit. If such direction is followed, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant on merits subject to verification of deposit particulars. 2. In the result stay application is disposed of remanding the matter to ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to carry out above direction subject to verification of challan." 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal has adopted discriminatory approach in respect of the same controversy, which has been already decided finally in terms of decision dated 6-11-2012 in ST/Appeal No. 198/2011. Moreover, the dealers similarly placed as that of the petitioner were shown indulgence by the same Tribunal, as is evident from the orders passed in their case, dated 19th February, 2013 and 21st February, 2013, at pages 121 and 122, respectively. The order dated 19th February, 2013 reads thus : "In view of the order of the Tribunal in Appeal Order in the case of Best Gas Services & Ors. vide Final Order No. ST/A/663-667/2012-Cus., ld. Commissioner (Appeals) should do well to hear the appeal waiving requirement of pre-deposit so as to enable the appellant to contest on merits. This disposes both the stay application and appeal remanding the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for appropriate order." The order dated 21st February, 2013 reads as follows : "Both sides agree that if result of appeal No. ST/496/2012 is followed, none of the party shall be affected. Accordingly waiving requirement of pre-deposit, we sent the matter back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing the appellant. He need not insist pre-deposit and shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal. 2. In the result both stay application and appeal are disposed remanding the matter to ld. Commissioner (Appeals)." 5. Accordingly waiving requirement of pre-deposit, we sent the matter back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing the appellant. He need not insist pre-deposit and shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal. 2. In the result both stay application and appeal are disposed remanding the matter to ld. Commissioner (Appeals)." 5. In the present case, the issue raised by the petitioner may be overlapping with the issues raised by Rohit Industries and M/s. Kathuria Electronics, which is relying on the main judgment in the case of Rama Infotech v. CCE, Lucknow. We fail to understand as to why different approach has been adopted in the case of another dealer raising similar question and not resorting to order of remand, as was the order passed in the case of Rohit Industries. 6. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned decision of the Tribunal and instead accept the request of the petitioner to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit so as to enable the petitioner to contest the appeal on merits, as, in all probabilities, the petitioner's appeal will also be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), as was done in the case of other dealers. 7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application (s), if any.