Pre-deposit hardship claims fail without proof, and non-compliance with a stay order can result in dismissal.

A request to modify or waive a pre-deposit direction was rejected because the applicant did not substantiate alleged financial hardship with particulars of assets and liabilities, income-tax clearance, or accounts. The Tribunal noted that only part of the amount had been deposited and that the duty liability had been worked out after considering the end use certificate. Finding no strong basis to recall the stay order and holding that revenue interest required protection, it declined modification and treated non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction as fatal to the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit direction under the stay order should be modified or waived on the ground of alleged financial hardship, and whether non-compliance justified dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis: The applicant had deposited only a part of the amount and failed to furnish particulars of assets and liabilities, income-tax clearance certificate, or statement of accounts to substantiate financial hardship. The Tribunal noted that the duty liability had been worked out after considering the end use certificate and that the revenue interest required protection under Section 129E of the Act. In the absence of a strong case for recall of the stay order, the request for modification was not accepted.

Conclusion: The request for modification of the stay order was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction.

---