Pre-deposit waiver on financial hardship, but stay of recovery refused despite prima facie objection to Rule 209A penalties.

Financial hardship justified dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, as the appellant's condition was found to be precarious. The Tribunal also reiterated its prima facie view that penalties under rule 209A are not leviable where no confiscation of goods has been ordered, supporting waiver of deposit. However, the request for stay of recovery of the adjudicated duties and penalties was refused, so the appellants remained without interim protection against recovery while the appeal proceeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to dispensation of pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether stay of recovery of duties and penalties should be granted.

Analysis: The financial condition of the appellant was found to be precarious. The Tribunal also noted its consistent prima facie view that penalties under rule 209A are not leviable when no confiscation of goods has been ordered. On that basis, the case was considered fit for dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement. At the same time, the request for stay of recovery of the amounts already adjudicated was not accepted.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit requirement was dispensed with, but stay of recovery of duties and penalties was refused.

---