Pre-deposit waiver under Section 35F denied where prima facie case was arguable and no financial hardship was shown.

Unconditional waiver of pre-deposit was declined because the loading charges issue was only arguable, the limitation plea was left open for final adjudication, and no financial hardship was shown. The first appellant was therefore required to deposit part of the duty demand, after which stay was granted for the balance duty and the entire penalty. The second appellant obtained unconditional stay.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of the entire pre-deposit should be granted under Section 35F, and whether the appellants had made out a sufficient prima facie case for unconditional stay.

Analysis: The dispute regarding inclusion of loading charges in the assessable value was treated as arguable and contentious. The plea of limitation was not examined finally at the stay stage and was left for consideration at the time of final disposal on the evidence then on record. No financial hardship was pleaded. In these circumstances, unconditional dispensation of pre-deposit was held not warranted.

Conclusion: The first appellant was directed to deposit part of the duty demand, with dispensation and stay granted for the balance duty and entire penalty upon such deposit. The stay application of the second appellant was allowed unconditionally.

---