Pre-deposit waiver in duty dispute denied where job-work claim lacked support and partial deposit was ordered.

Total waiver of pre-deposit was refused in a stay application concerning duty and penalty because the claimed job-work manufacturing arrangement was not prima facie supported by the record. The material indicated no genuine job work, very limited workforce, inadequate records, old and rusted machinery, low electricity consumption, and non-operational equipment. Compliance with Notification No. 214/86-CE was also not established, and financial hardship was not substantiated. On that basis, the balance of convenience was held to favour the Department, and deposit of 25% of the duty demand was directed as a condition for waiver and stay of the balance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to total waiver of pre-deposit in the stay application arising from the demand of duty and penalty, and whether a partial deposit should be ordered.

Analysis: The applicant's claimed manufacturing arrangement through job workers was found prima facie unsupported, as the investigation indicated absence of genuine job work, very limited workforce, inadequate records, old and rusted machinery, low electricity consumption, and non-operational equipment. The applicant also did not establish compliance with the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. On the material available, the applicant failed to make out a case for complete waiver, and financial hardship was not substantiated. The balance of convenience was found to be in favour of the Department.

Conclusion: Total waiver of pre-deposit was declined and the applicant was directed to deposit 25% of the duty demand within the stipulated time, with waiver and stay of the balance upon compliance.

---