Pre-deposit waiver on classification and limitation claims was limited where prima facie evidence did not support the applicants' case.

In a pre-deposit and stay application, weak prima facie support on classification and an unsubstantiated limitation objection justified only partial interim relief. The products were found prima facie classifiable against the applicants' case, and the material on record did not sufficiently establish the claimed cooking process. The classification declarations also did not show compliance with the prescribed verification of manufacturing process, so the extended period objection was not accepted at that stage. Complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore declined, with only a part-deposit directed and recovery of the balance stayed pending compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants had made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal; (ii) whether the plea against the demand based on classification and limitation disclosed a strong prima facie case.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants had made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal.

Analysis: The products were found, on the material then available, to have been prima facie classifiable against the applicants' claim. The order also recorded that the applicants had not produced material sufficient to show cooking of the products as claimed. On that footing, complete waiver was not warranted.

Conclusion: Complete waiver of pre-deposit was rejected; a part-deposit was directed and the balance was waived.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea against the demand based on classification and limitation disclosed a strong prima facie case.

Analysis: The classification declarations were held not to disclose the cooking process, and the Board instructions regarding verification of the manufacturing process were found not to have been shown to have been complied with in the declarations placed before the Tribunal. The extended period objection was therefore not accepted at that stage.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was not accepted for the purpose of full waiver, and the applicants were directed to make a partial deposit.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted only to a limited extent, with partial waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the remaining amount pending compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: In a pre-deposit/stay application, where the available material shows a weak prima facie case on classification and the limitation plea is not substantiated, complete waiver may be declined and only partial relief granted.

---