Pre-deposit in excise dispute upheld after prima facie failure to show compliance with export-oriented unit conditions.

A challenge to the Tribunal's pre-deposit order in a central excise dispute failed because no substantial question of law arose. The controversy concerned alleged diversion of duty-free indigenous raw material by a 100% export-oriented unit in breach of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. The Tribunal had made prima facie findings, for waiver purposes, that the appellant had not shown clearance of goods to the alleged export-oriented recipient, that the job-workers' premises showed no manufacturing activity, and that compliance with the condition of using indigenous material in manufacture of export goods was not established. The High Court found no error in that prima facie assessment and rejected the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit called for interference in appeal and whether any substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: The dispute concerned demand of central excise duty on alleged diversion of duty-free indigenous raw material by a 100% export oriented unit in breach of the conditions of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. The Tribunal, while considering waiver of pre-deposit, recorded prima facie findings that the appellant had not established clearance of goods to the alleged export-oriented recipient, that the job-workers' premises showed no manufacturing activity, and that the appellant had failed to show compliance with the basic requirement that the indigenous raw material was used in manufacture of export goods. On that basis, the Tribunal quantified the pre-deposit. The High Court found no error in that prima facie assessment and no merit in the challenge.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the pre-deposit order was rejected.

---