Appellant denied complete duty waiver due to financial constraints, granted partial deposit option.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant company's request for a complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts due to financial difficulties, only allowing partial deposits. Despite the appellant's status as a sick unit and legal constraints, the Tribunal emphasized compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and dismissed the appeals for non-compliance. However, the Tribunal granted the appellant the liberty to apply for restoration of appeals upon payment of the directed deposit amounts by a specified date.

---

---

Issues: Compliance with stay orders, modification of stay order, waiver of pre-deposit, financial condition of the appellant company, rejection of applications, non-compliance with Section 35F, liberty to apply for restoration of appeals.

Compliance with Stay Orders:
The appeals were posted for reporting compliance with Stay Order No. 122/2004-B and Stay Order No. 123-126/2004-B, directing the appellant to deposit specific amounts by a certain date. The appellant sought modification of the stay order, citing financial difficulties due to being a sick unit and legal restrictions on sale of goods. The Tribunal considered the submissions but found the reasons insufficient to waive the pre-deposit requirement entirely.

Modification of Stay Order and Waiver of Pre-deposit:
The appellant company moved a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order and unconditional stay, requesting a waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts. They highlighted their status as a sick unit and legal constraints imposed by the High Court and a notice from a bank. However, the Tribunal, after evaluating the financial condition of the company, only directed partial deposits based on the total duty demand and penalty amounts, rejecting the plea for a complete waiver.

Financial Condition of the Appellant Company:
The appellant company's financial condition, including being declared a sick unit and facing legal restrictions on sale of goods, was presented as grounds for seeking a waiver of pre-deposit. Despite these circumstances, the Tribunal found the partial deposits ordered to be reasonable and necessary for entertaining the appeals.

Rejection of Applications and Non-compliance with Section 35F:
Both sides presented their arguments, with the Departmental Representative opposing the waiver of pre-deposit based on the existing legal orders and notices. The Tribunal considered the submissions but ultimately rejected the applications for waiver, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the pre-deposit requirements under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Due to non-compliance, all appeals were dismissed.

Liberty to Apply for Restoration of Appeals:
While dismissing the appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit provisions, the Tribunal granted the Applicants the liberty to apply for restoration of appeals if the directed deposit amounts were paid by a specified date, showing consideration for potential future reinstatement of the appeals in the interest of justice.

---