Pre-deposit waiver under Rule 57D(1) requires proof that the material is waste, refuse or by-product and not used further.

A claim for waiver of pre-deposit based on Rule 57D(1) failed because the applicant did not produce evidence that the insoluble salt separated from crude glycerine was in fact waste, refuse or a by-product, or that it was not used in the manufacture of any other product. In the absence of such proof, the benefit of the rule could not be invoked to dispense with deposit of the duty demand. Pre-deposit of the duty was therefore directed, while pre-deposit of the penalty was waived and recovery of the penalty stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty on the claim that the insoluble salt separated from crude glycerine was waste, refuse or by-product covered by Rule 57D(1).

Analysis: The applicant sought waiver of deposit in respect of duty demanded on the sedimentary portion of crude glycerine. The claim that the insoluble salt was waste, refuse or by-product could not be accepted at the stage of waiver because there was no supporting evidence that the material was in fact disposed of as such or that it was not used in the manufacture of any other product. In the absence of such proof, the benefit of Rule 57D(1) was not shown to be available for dispensing with the duty deposit.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demand was declined.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was directed to deposit the duty demanded, while the pre-deposit of penalty was waived and recovery thereof stayed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for waiver of pre-deposit on the footing that a material is waste, refuse or by-product cannot be accepted without evidence establishing that character and its non-use in the manufacture of any other product.

---