Marketability and exemption for tunnel construction components failed, so only partial pre-deposit waiver was granted pending appeal.

Prefabricated structural components used in tunnel construction were treated as manufactured goods at an intermediate stage, not as part of the immovable tunnel, because marketability remained the key consideration. The Tribunal also rejected the exemption claim since the goods did not fall within the notification expression "equipment" for the metro project. On interim relief, the balance sheet and financial material did not show hardship sufficient for total waiver of pre-deposit. CESTAT therefore granted only partial waiver, ordering a substantial deposit and keeping the balance demand in abeyance pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the duty, interest and penalty demanded on prefabricated structural components used in tunnel construction, including the claim based on exemption notifications; (ii) whether the balance of convenience and financial position justified dispensing with the pre-deposit in full.

Issue (i): whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the duty, interest and penalty demanded on prefabricated structural components used in tunnel construction, including the claim based on exemption notifications.

Analysis: The product was treated as manufactured goods at an intermediate stage and not as part of the immovable tunnel itself. The reasoning turned on marketability, and the Tribunal distinguished authorities relied on by the appellants on the facts. The claim that the components were covered by the exemption for equipment procured for the metro project was rejected because the goods in question did not fall within the expression "equipment" in the notification.

Conclusion: No complete waiver was granted on the merits of excisability and exemption.

Issue (ii): whether the balance of convenience and financial position justified dispensing with the pre-deposit in full.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the balance sheet and the overall financial position, and held that the material placed did not establish such hardship as would justify total waiver. While no full dispensation was warranted, the facts justified relief by directing a substantial deposit and waiving the balance pending appeal.

Conclusion: The appellants were granted only a partial waiver and were directed to make a substantial pre-deposit.

Final Conclusion: The stay applications were disposed of by granting partial relief, with a substantial pre-deposit ordered and the balance of the demand kept in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For interim excise relief, a claimed exemption and challenge to marketability must establish a strong prima facie case, and absence of proved financial hardship justifies only partial waiver rather than complete dispensation.

---