Pre-deposit compliance and excess EOU clearances upheld where no prima facie case or granted permission was shown

Excess clearances by a 100% export oriented unit were not entitled to concessional treatment where the appellant failed to show that the clearances were within the permitted limit or that any further permission had been granted. The pending request for enhanced permission did not change the position because there was no order accepting it, and the appellant had no prima facie case on the record. The Tribunal was therefore justified in requiring pre-deposit and in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance, and financial hardship alone did not displace that consequence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal for non-compliance, where the appellant claimed excess clearances from a 100% export oriented unit and sought relief on the basis of pending permission and financial hardship.

Analysis: The appellant had made clearances beyond the limit permitted by the Development Commissioner, and no material showed that further permission had been granted. In the absence of proof that the clearances were within the permitted limit or that the appellant had a prima facie case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the excess clearances were not entitled to concessional treatment. The plea of pending application for enhanced permission did not alter the position, as there was no order accepting it. The Tribunal was also correct in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, and financial difficulty could not by itself displace that consequence.

Conclusion: The direction of pre-deposit and the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance were upheld, and the challenge failed.

---