Pre-deposit waiver in excise stay proceedings fails where site-fabricated equipment is found prima facie excisable and marketable.

Complete waiver of pre-deposit in a stay application was declined because no strong prima facie case was shown against the adjudication that a fired heater fabricated at site was an independent, movable and marketable equipment classifiable under the tariff. The Tribunal relied on the technical note, chartered engineer's certificate, site inspection report and the Board's section 37B order, and found the cited precedents distinguishable on their facts. Duty and interest were directed to be deposited, while penalty was stayed subject to compliance, resulting in only limited interim protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether complete waiver of pre-deposit was warranted in a stay application concerning duty, interest, and penalty on fabrication of a fired heater at site.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had examined the material on record, including the technical note, chartered engineer's certificate, and site inspection report, and had applied the Board's order under section 37B. It found that the fired heater was fabricated at site as an independent equipment with a distinct identity, commercially known in trade parlance, moveable and marketable, and classifiable under the relevant tariff entry. The Tribunal held that the authorities cited for the appellant dealt with different kinds of equipment and were not directly applicable to the fired heater dispute. In these circumstances, no strong prima facie case for complete waiver was made out.

Conclusion: Complete waiver of pre-deposit was declined. The duty and interest were directed to be deposited, while the penalty was stayed on compliance.

Final Conclusion: The stay application was disposed of by granting only limited protection and by requiring pre-deposit of the duty and interest.

Ratio Decidendi: In a stay proceeding, complete waiver of pre-deposit will not be granted where the appellant fails to establish a strong prima facie case and the impugned order is supported by factual examination showing excisability and marketability of the goods.

---