Pre-deposit waiver under Central Excise law upheld where prior deposit protected Revenue and further payment caused undue hardship.

Existing pre-deposit was treated as sufficient for admission of the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act because the appellant had already deposited a substantial amount and the material on record indicated disputes over document supply, cross-examination, and the demand computation. The competing views turned on whether further deposit was necessary: one Member required additional pre-deposit for want of a strong prima facie case, while the other found that insisting on more would cause undue hardship. The Third Member agreed that the earlier deposit adequately protected Revenue. The balance pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the remaining duty and penalty was stayed during the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the balance pre-deposit of duty and penalty was required to be made for hearing of the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The majority held that the appellant had already deposited a substantial amount and that, in the facts of the case, the existing deposit afforded adequate protection to Revenue at the stage of admission. The recorded material showed dispute on supply of documents, cross-examination, and the working of the demand, and the question at this stage was only whether further deposit should be insisted upon. One Member found that the appellant had not made out a strong prima facie case for total waiver and ordered further deposit, while the other Member considered the earlier deposit sufficient and found that insisting on more would cause undue hardship. On reference, the Third Member agreed that the existing deposit should be treated as sufficient for hearing of the appeal.

Conclusion: The balance pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the remaining duty and penalty was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

---