Prior remission of duty required before destruction of cut tobacco under Rule 196B(ii); only partial pre-deposit waiver granted.

Permission to destroy cut tobacco under Rule 196B(ii) was treated as dependent on prior remission of duty under Rule 49. Because the record showed no specific request for remission and no order granting it, the appellant could not establish a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit. Closure of the factory and financial hardship were nevertheless considered, so only partial relief was granted by directing deposit of a reduced amount, with waiver and stay for the balance on compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, and whether destruction of cut tobacco could be permitted under Rule 196B(ii) without remission of duty under Rule 49.

Analysis: The application for destruction under Rule 196B(ii) was examined against the requirement that the duty payable on the goods must first stand remitted. The record did not show any specific request for remission under Rule 49, nor any order granting such remission. In the absence of material showing satisfaction of that condition, the appellant could not establish a strong prima facie case for complete waiver. At the same time, the closure of the factory and the asserted financial hardship were taken into account for granting limited relief.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit or complete stay, but was granted partial relief by directing deposit of a reduced amount, with waiver and stay as to the balance on compliance.

Final Conclusion: The stay application was disposed of by granting only conditional, partial waiver of pre-deposit and corresponding stay for the remaining duty demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission to destroy goods under Rule 196B(ii) could not be treated as available unless the statutory condition of prior remission of duty under Rule 49 was satisfied.

---