Prima facie case governs interim waiver of pre-deposit, with one duty demand upheld and one notification benefit protected.

Interim waiver of pre-deposit turns on whether a prima facie case is made out on the facts and the claimed notification benefit. In relation to the demand under Notification No. 2/95-C.E., no complete waiver was granted because the record showed a duty liability had already been considered and the appellant had not established a prima facie case for full protection; the appellant was directed to deposit the demanded amount. For the iron safe claim under Notification No. 126/94, the benefit was prima facie accepted as the safe was treated as necessary for safekeeping diamonds, and recovery was stayed pending further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amount demanded under Notification No. 2/95-C.E. dated 4-1-95. (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the demand raised after denial of the benefit of Notification No. 126/94 for an iron safe claimed as a necessary item for safekeeping of diamonds.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amount demanded under Notification No. 2/95-C.E. dated 4-1-95.

Analysis: The demand arose from clearance of goods in the domestic market on payment of additional duty of Customs under the notification. The appellant disputed the liability and offered only a partial payment, but the record showed that the authorities had already considered the liability and required discharge of the duty in the manner indicated in the impugned order. On the material placed, no prima facie case for complete waiver was made out.

Conclusion: The request for waiver of pre-deposit on this issue was rejected, and the appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount demanded.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the demand raised after denial of the benefit of Notification No. 126/94 for an iron safe claimed as a necessary item for safekeeping of diamonds.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the denial of the notification benefit in relation to an iron safe. The Court accepted the prima facie position that, for safekeeping of diamonds, an iron safe was a necessity and the claim had support at the interim stage. That conclusion justified protection against immediate recovery pending further proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The stay applications were disposed of with one demand being put to deposit and recovery, while the other was granted interim protection by waiver of pre-deposit and stay.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim waiver of pre-deposit depends on whether a prima facie case is made out on the facts and the claimed notification benefit.

---