JUDGMENT T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the miscellaneous order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [The Tribunal] in Miscellaneous Order No.42733 of 2013 dated 22.11.2013. The said miscellaneous petition was filed by the assessee seeking for stay and waiver of the pre-deposit for the purpose of entertaining the appeal filed against the order in Original dated 17.10.2012. The Tribunal, after considering the case of the assessee, directed it to deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) within a period of four weeks. Challenging the same, the assessee, is on appeal before this Court and seeks admission of the appeal on the following questions of law: "1. Is the 2nd respondent Tribunal right in directing the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) towards the adjudged dues, when prima facie, it has found that there is no fraud, collusion, wilful suppression or misstatement attributable to the appellants and hence the demand itself was unsustainable? 2. Is the 2nd respondent Tribunal right in directing pre-deposit of the aforesaid amount, even though there was a plea of financial hardship, backed by materials. In this connection, is the 2nd respondent Tribunal in error in overlooking such pla and materials thereto and passing an order directing pre-deposit? 3. Is the 2nd respondent Tribunal right in coming to the conclusion prima facie, that the appellants had violated the conditions of the Notification No.31/2007-C.E.(NT) dated 02.08.2007; inasmuch as the appellants have not produced C.T.-1 forms from their buyers, who are not registered with Central Excise authorities and do not come under the Excise net, as no Central Excise duty is payable by them in respect of the exports made by them? 4. Is the 2nd respondent Tribunal right in not acceding to the plea taken that the appellants cannot be expected to do the impossible inasmuch as, they had no control over the issue of C.T.-1 Forms for hangers, etc., sold by them to the garment exporters? 5. 4. Is the 2nd respondent Tribunal right in not acceding to the plea taken that the appellants cannot be expected to do the impossible inasmuch as, they had no control over the issue of C.T.-1 Forms for hangers, etc., sold by them to the garment exporters? 5. Has the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the Notification itself is a procedural one and not substantive and inasmuch as voluminous evidence to show that the goods sold by the appellants to their buyers were admittedly exported out of India and proof thereof was available with the 2nd respondent; and therefore, the benefit of the said Notification should go in favour of the appellants. The denial of such Notification in terms of the order under challenge before the 2nd respondent and consequent demand of duty and adjudication liabilities is per se unsustain able? 6. Has the 2nd respondent Tribunal erred in directing pre-deposit when admittedly the appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour against the demand? 7. Whether the 2nd respondent Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration that the requirement of the appellants to furnish CT-1 forms in terms of the above Notification was a condition impossible to fulfil and the predicament of the appellants was being discussed between two Ministries controlling the operation of the appellants, viz., the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the Ministry of Finance, particularly when the correspondences between the two ministries were placed before the 2nd respondent Tribunal?" 2. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee has made out a prima facie case yet imposed the condition, which is onerous and considering the financial situation of the company, the assessee will not be able to comply with the order. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the insistence of the Department for production of CT-I form is impossible of performance, since the assessee has supplied hangers to exporters as it is an Export Oriented Unit and the fact that those hangers were exported and payments received by the assessee were from the funds realised on account of the export, has not been disputed by the Department. 3. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the various communications sent by the Development Commissioner to the Central Excise Authorities and other authorities explaining the factual position and also stating that the insistence of payment of Central Excise on the transactions effected by the appellant would cause great hardship to the appellant. 4. Mr. K. Mohana Muarali, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/ Department sought to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal by referring to the submissions made by the assessee before the Original Authority. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has only directed pre-deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) when the duty demand is nearly Rupees two crores. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The assessee is carrying on business in the manufacture of plastic hangers and is supplying the same to the various customers who are garment exporters. The plastic hangers are cleared by the assessee from their factory to the export house by availing the benefit of Notification No.31/07 Central Excise NT dated 02.08.2007. 7. It is the case of the assessee that the Notification contemplates that any Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) Exporter seeking to procure goods without payment of excise duty is expected to submit CT-I Form to the assessee in addition to other conditions specified in the Notification. Further, their case is that the impugned condition under the Notification is that the goods are to be ultimately exported and not consumed in the DTA. Further it is submitted that the assessee has been carrying on the business since 2005. While so, on 16.04.2012, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1,98,59,127/- should not be demanded as excise duty for the period from July 2007 to February 2012. That apart, there was also a proposal to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. While so, on 16.04.2012, a show cause notice was issued calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1,98,59,127/- should not be demanded as excise duty for the period from July 2007 to February 2012. That apart, there was also a proposal to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee explained to the authorities stating the fact that the hangers supplied to the garment exporters were actually exported, being not in dispute, they would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification in terms of clause 6.9(g) of the Notification, which states that the supplies of items like tags, labels, printed bags, stickers, belts, buttons or hangers to DTA unit for export would be counted for fulfillment of positive NFE. The Tribunal after considering the case of the assessee pointed out that the assessee has a strong prima facie case in its favour on the validity of invoking the extended period of limitation and in other words, the Tribunal was prima facie satisfied that there was no cause for invoking the extended period of limitation, in the absence of a clear cut case of suppression of material facts for the purpose of invoking the extended period. Having observed so, the Tribunal further proceeded to observe that prima facie the assessee appears to have contravened and failed to comply with the conditions specified in the Notification No.31/2007-CE(NT). 8. From the series of communications sent by the Development Commissioner to the Central Excise Authorities as well as Director General of Foreign Trade, it is evident that the assessee is a 100% Exported Oriented Unit. It would be of relevance to refer to the observations contained in the various communications sent by the Development Commissioner, wherein, it has been observed that the Central Excise Authorities stand is that the DTA has not registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise and hence they cannot not be issued CT-1 Form; but the unit claims that since the DTA units involved in this transaction are garment exporters yet they are exempted from Excise registration. It is further stated that the assessee is facing difficulties in their day to day affairs due to the conditions stipulated by the Central Excise Authorities and the assessee has requested the authorities to take up their grievance with the appropriate authorities for favourable consideration. It is further stated that the assessee is facing difficulties in their day to day affairs due to the conditions stipulated by the Central Excise Authorities and the assessee has requested the authorities to take up their grievance with the appropriate authorities for favourable consideration. It is relevant to note that in the communication of the Development Commissioner dated 24.10.2013 addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, it has been observed by the Development Commissioner that the goods cleared into the DTA under clause 6.9(g) of the Foreign Trade Policy is used by the garment exporters meant for manufacture and exports and it is a deemed export and they are also paying for the goods in foreign exchange in terms of the said condition and the Notification 31 (2007) also provides for verification of foreign exchange remittance with reference to Bill of Lading, Form-II etc., and in view of the peculiar circumstances, request was made to the Commissioner of Central Excise that the sales effected by the assessee may be treated as deemed exports and help the assessee to reduce the hardship faced by them and the stand taken by the Central Excise negates the facility provided by the exim policy 6.9(g). 9. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the assessee has made out a prima facie case in its favour and satisfied with the grounds raised by the assessee, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal and granting full waiver of the pre-deposit. Till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the demand shall remain stayed. It is made clear that the observation made in this order shall not stand in the way of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 10. With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.