Pre-deposit orders may be reduced where an ex parte direction and financial hardship justify a lesser deposit.

A stay order requiring deposit of the entire duty liability was modified after the earlier direction was noted to have been passed ex parte and the appellant showed financial hardship through loss in its balance sheet. The tribunal balanced those factors against prima facie observations in the connected matter and found full pre-deposit excessive. The pre-deposit requirement was therefore recalibrated, and the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within eight weeks, with the appeals to be heard on merits only after compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the stay order directing deposit of the entire duty liability required modification and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The application was examined in the light of the earlier stay order, the subsequent prima facie view recorded in the connected matter, and the plea of financial hardship. The order noted that the earlier direction had been passed ex parte and that the appellant had shown loss in the balance sheet despite some revenue from operations. Balancing these factors with the prima facie observations arising from the connected proceedings, the requirement of full pre-deposit was considered excessive and liable to be recalibrated.

Conclusion: The stay order was modified and the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs within eight weeks, with the appeals to be heard on merits upon compliance.

Final Conclusion: The pre-deposit burden was substantially reduced, and continuation of the appeals was made conditional on compliance with the modified deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: A stay/pre-deposit order may be modified where the earlier direction was ex parte and the record shows prima facie considerations and financial hardship warranting a lesser deposit.

---