Prima facie case supports waiver of pre-deposit where prior order had been set aside in remand proceedings.

In de novo adjudication after a limited remand, an earlier adjudication that had already been set aside could not be relied on or revived by the Commissioner, because it had ceased to exist. On the material before it, the applicant established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit, and the demand confirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not justify insisting on deposit at that stage. The waiver application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to dispensation of pre-deposit in view of the prima facie merits and whether the Commissioner could sustain the demand by relying on an earlier order that had already been set aside in remand proceedings.

Analysis: The application arose from de novo adjudication after a limited remand directing fresh examination of the samples of molasses. The earlier adjudication had already been set aside by the Tribunal, with the result that it ceased to exist and could not be affirmed or revived by the Commissioner. On the material placed, the applicant made out a prima facie case, and the challenged demand, confirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could not justify insisting on pre-deposit at that stage.

Conclusion: The application for waiver of pre-deposit was allowed.

---