Pre-deposit waiver in drawback disputes turns on prima facie case, revenue protection and statutory drawback eligibility.

Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E depends on a prima facie case, undue hardship, balance of convenience and protection of revenue. In examining drawback claims under Section 75 and Rule 3 of the 1995 Drawback Rules, the Tribunal noted that excise component drawback was not admissible where the exporter could not show non-availment of input duty credit. It further stated that a later Board circular could not override the statutory proviso to Rule 3. As no strong prima facie case for complete waiver was shown, only limited relief was granted by requiring deposit of the drawback amount and waiving the balance of the demand, interest and penalty subject to compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the drawback demand, interest and penalty under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled principles governing waiver of pre-deposit, namely prima facie case, undue hardship, balance of convenience and protection of revenue. It examined the drawback scheme under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 3 of the Customs & Central Excise Duties of Drawback Rules, 1995, and held that the excise component of all industry rate drawback was not admissible where the exporter failed to establish non-availment of input duty credit. The Tribunal also held that the later Board circular could not override the statutory proviso to Rule 3 and that the appellant had not made out a strong prima facie case for complete waiver. In the circumstances, full waiver of pre-deposit was not justified, though limited relief was warranted by directing deposit only of the drawback amount and waiving the balance demand.

Conclusion: The appellant was directed to pre-deposit the entire drawback amount already availed, and waiver was granted only for the balance amount of interest and penalty subject to compliance.

---