Clandestine removal and pre-deposit waiver denied where seized records and statements indicated prima facie duty evasion.

In a clandestine removal matter, the Tribunal found the seized goods, parallel invoices, recovered documents and statements sufficient at the interim stage to indicate possible duty evasion. As no financial hardship was pleaded and the applicants failed to show a strong or even reasonable prima facie case, the Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to waive pre-deposit of duty and penalties. The stay applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties in a case of alleged clandestine removal.

Analysis: The demand arose from seizure of excisable goods and investigation indicating removal of goods on the strength of parallel invoices without actual payment of duty. The record relied on by the department, including statements and documents recovered from the factory, was sufficient at the interim stage to indicate evasion. No financial hardship was pleaded. In these circumstances, the applicants failed to show a strong prima facie case or even a reasonable case for invoking the Tribunal's discretionary power to waive pre-deposit.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was rightly declined and the stay applications were rejected.

---