Pre-deposit waiver in excise matters may be refused where duty-free removals are admitted and statutory payment rules are repeatedly breached.

Repeated removal of excisable goods without sufficient PLA balance and in breach of duty-payment requirements under the Central Excise Rules justified denial of full waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal treated the clearances without payment of duty as undisputed and held that pleas of financial hardship, loss of funds, or BIFR reference did not excuse non-compliance with statutory duty obligations. It further noted that cited precedents were distinguishable because the violation was repeated and admitted. Full waiver was therefore refused, with only a limited reduction in the immediate deposit burden and the balance penalty kept stayed pending the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount in a case involving admitted clearance of excisable goods without sufficient balance in the PLA and repeated contravention of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The clearances without payment of duty were not in dispute. The appellants had repeatedly removed goods without maintaining sufficient balance to cover the duty due, in breach of Rule 9(1) and Rule 173G(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the plea of financial hardship, loss of funds, or reference to BIFR could not justify non-payment of statutory duty. The Tribunal also found that the cited precedents were not applicable because the facts showed repeated and undisputed violation, and the gravity of the offence and the amount involved weighed against full waiver.

Conclusion: Full waiver of pre-deposit was declined. The appellants were directed to pre-deposit Rs. 20,00,000 towards penalty, and only the balance penalty was waived and stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted only to a limited extent by reducing the immediate deposit burden, while the remaining penalty recovery was kept in abeyance pending the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Admitted and repeated violation of statutory duty-payment requirements, coupled with the absence of a justifying legal ground, can justify refusal of full waiver of pre-deposit despite financial hardship pleas.

---