Pre-deposit waiver and financial hardship claims failed where sickness under SICA was not genuinely established.

Waiver of pre-deposit is available only on a genuine showing of undue hardship, balanced against protection of revenue. Here, the Tribunal found that the appellants had not established financial distress, as their BIFR applications were either rejected or did not demonstrate genuine sickness, and the conduct noted in those proceedings cast doubt on the hardship claim. The earlier finding that no prima facie case had been made out on merits remained unchanged. The appellants were therefore required to deposit the entire duty demand, while pre-deposit of interest and penalty was waived on such deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty on the ground of financial hardship and alleged sickness under SICA.

Analysis: The appellants' applications before the BIFR had either been rejected or were pending in a manner that did not establish genuine sickness, and the conduct recorded in the BIFR proceedings created serious doubt about the claim of financial distress. The earlier finding that the appellants had not made out a prima facie case on merits remained undisturbed, and the Tribunal applied the settled requirement that waiver of pre-deposit depends on consideration of undue hardship together with protection of revenue interests.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to waiver of pre-deposit; they were directed to deposit the entire duty demand, while pre-deposit of interest and penalty stood waived on such deposit.

---