Pre-deposit discretion upheld where prima facie duty evasion existed and the Tribunal could later finalize stay directions.

The Tribunal could pass a final stay order after an earlier interim deposit direction, because the interim arrangement did not finally dispose of the pending stay application. Total waiver of pre-deposit was refused where the demand was supported by prima facie evidence recovered from the premises, including records suggesting clearance without invoices and without duty payment, and the dispute was not confined to average power consumption. Interference with the pre-deposit order was unwarranted because the stay discretion must balance undue hardship against protection of revenue, and the direction to deposit 25% of the duty demand with a fixed penalty amount was not illegal or perverse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass a final stay order after having earlier directed an interim deposit during pendency of the stay application; (ii) Whether the demand could be said to rest only on average electricity consumption so as to warrant total waiver of pre-deposit; (iii) Whether interference with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order was justified in view of the prima facie material and the governing principles on waiver of pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass a final stay order after having earlier directed an interim deposit during pendency of the stay application.

Analysis: The earlier direction was only an interim arrangement made because the stay application had remained pending for a long time. It did not finally dispose of the stay request. The later order was passed after hearing both sides and constituted the final order on the stay application. The Tribunal was competent to regulate the requirement of pre-deposit and to pass a subsequent final order on the pending stay application.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected; the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the final stay order.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be said to rest only on average electricity consumption so as to warrant total waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis: The record showed that the demand was supported by material recovered from the premises of the buying unit, including records indicating clearances without invoices and without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that the dispute was not confined to a bare assumption based on power consumption and that there was prima facie evidence of duty evasion. In such circumstances, the case was not one for total waiver of pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The plea for total waiver was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether interference with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order was justified in view of the prima facie material and the governing principles on waiver of pre-deposit.

Analysis: In matters of stay and waiver of pre-deposit, the authority must balance undue hardship against the need to safeguard revenue. A mere assertion of hardship is insufficient. The Court found substantial prima facie evidence against the appellants and also noted that similar proceedings had been upheld in connected matters. On that basis, the direction to deposit 25% of the duty demand and a fixed amount towards penalty could not be termed illegal or perverse.

Conclusion: No interference with the Tribunal's order was warranted; the order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on all material grounds and the pre-deposit directions were sustained, leaving the substantive disputes to be examined by the Tribunal at the final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority may require pre-deposit and grant only partial waiver where there is prima facie evidence of duty evasion and the applicant fails to establish undue hardship, because the discretion under the stay provisions must be exercised to balance hardship with protection of revenue.

---