Strong prima facie case can justify waiver of pre-deposit, with revenue protection secured through a bank guarantee.

In exercising discretion under Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, a strong prima facie case may justify waiver of pre-deposit even where documentary proof of financial hardship is limited. The Court balanced the assessee's claim for interim protection against the need to safeguard revenue and found that the recovery condition could be modified rather than imposed in its original form. Interim relief was therefore granted by substituting the pre-deposit requirement with a bank guarantee, preserving revenue protection while relieving the immediate burden on the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of duty as a condition for stay of recovery, or whether the assessee had made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit and interim protection.

Analysis: The writ petition arose from an order passed under the discretionary stay jurisdiction under Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Court noted that the controversy on merits required detailed examination in the appeal, but on the materials placed, the assessee had demonstrated a strong prima facie case. The absence of documentary proof of financial hardship was not treated as decisive where the prima facie case was strong. At the same time, the interests of revenue were required to be protected, and the Court therefore balanced both considerations by substituting the pre-deposit condition with a bank guarantee.

Conclusion: The direction to make pre-deposit was not sustained in its original form, and the assessee was granted interim protection against recovery on furnishing a bank guarantee instead.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercising power under Section 35F, a strong prima facie case may justify dispensing with pre-deposit, while revenue protection can be secured through an appropriate alternative condition.

---