Unjust enrichment and financial hardship did not justify waiver of pre-deposit in a refund-related excise demand.

Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a refund-related excise demand may be refused where the applicant fails to show a strong prima facie case on unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A subsequent credit note was not accepted as sufficient to establish that the doctrine did not apply, especially when the relevant question had been referred to a Larger Bench. Financial hardship was also rejected because it was not supported by valid evidence, and the amount involved was considered too small to justify relief on that ground. The request for waiver and stay was declined and deposit was directed within eight weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be granted in respect of the refund-related demand, having regard to the plea that unjust enrichment did not apply and the plea of financial hardship.

Analysis: The application was considered against the background of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The contention based on a subsequent credit note was not accepted as a strong prima facie case, particularly in view of the reference of the relevant question to a Larger Bench. The plea of financial hardship was also found unsupported by valid evidence, and the amount involved was considered too small to justify relief on that ground.

Conclusion: The request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was declined, and the applicant was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief of pre-deposit and stay may be refused where no strong prima facie case is made out on unjust enrichment and the plea of financial hardship is not substantiated.

---