Pre-deposit waiver denied where incriminating records and customs report supported the departmental case and no strong prima facie case was shown

Waiver of pre-deposit was refused because the appellant failed to show financial hardship or a strong prima facie case. The Tribunal treated the mobile call records and the customs officer's contemporaneous report as materially damaging evidence, sufficient to sustain the departmental case on a preponderance of probability. The objection that cross-examination was denied did not justify interference, and the adjudicating authority's findings on penalty were left undisturbed. The appeal was rejected on merits, with the Revenue's case sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit and for interference with the penalty order on merits.

Analysis: The appellant failed to establish financial hardship or any strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. The evidence on record, including the mobile call records and the contemporaneous report of the customs officer, was treated as materially damaging and sufficient to support the departmental case on the standard of preponderance of probability. The objection based on denial of cross-examination did not persuade the Tribunal to interfere, and the Tribunal also found no reason to disturb the findings of the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue; no interference with the impugned order was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was finally rejected on merits, with the departmental case sustained and the penalty order left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record discloses sufficient incriminating material and the appellant fails to show either financial hardship or a strong prima facie case, pre-deposit relief and interference with the departmental order are not warranted.

---