Pre-deposit waiver under excise law is not automatic; absence of personal hearing did not justify full relief here.

Denial of personal hearing does not automatically entitle an appellant to complete waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act where the appellate authority has already examined the appeal papers and submissions on record. The authority may still exercise discretion to reduce the deposit requirement if warranted on the facts. Here, complete waiver was refused, the pre-deposit was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs, recovery was stayed pending compliance, and the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after proof of deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be waived or reduced in view of the alleged denial of personal hearing, and whether the matter should be remanded for reconsideration.

Analysis: The appellate authority had quantified the deposit after considering the appeal papers and the relevant submissions already placed on record. On the facts, the absence of a personal hearing was not treated as causing prejudice sufficient to warrant complete waiver of the pre-deposit. The amount was, however, reduced in the exercise of discretion, and the balance duty was ordered to remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal upon compliance with the directed deposit.

Conclusion: The request for total waiver was rejected, the pre-deposit was scaled down to Rs. 5 lakhs, and the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after proof of deposit.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained only partial relief by way of reduction in the pre-deposit and stay of recovery, but the appeal on merits was sent back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Denial of personal hearing does not by itself justify complete waiver of pre-deposit where the appellate authority has already considered the appeal papers and exercised discretion in fixing the deposit amount.

---