Pre-deposit waiver depends on facts, financial hardship, and revenue interest; sick company status alone does not ensure total relief.

Complete waiver of pre-deposit was refused because the earlier Supreme Court order was treated as fact-specific, not as a general rule mandating total waiver. The Tribunal held that pre-deposit must be assessed on the facts by balancing prima facie merits, financial hardship, and the interest of Revenue; registration as a sick industrial company and negative net worth alone do not compel full waiver. On the financial material produced, it found that a limited deposit would not cause undue hardship and directed pre-deposit, with the balance demand waived and recovery stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether complete waiver of pre-deposit could be granted to a company registered as a sick industrial company with negative net worth, and whether the earlier Supreme Court order was a binding precedent requiring total waiver.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the order relied upon by the appellants did not lay down a general principle of law, but was confined to the facts of that case. It distinguished the earlier decisions on the basis that the question of pre-deposit under the relevant statutory scheme must be decided on the facts, balancing prima facie merits, financial hardship, and the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal also noted that registration before BIFR and negative net worth, by themselves, do not compel complete waiver. On the financial data placed before it, the Tribunal found that a limited pre-deposit would not cause undue hardship.

Conclusion: Complete waiver was declined. The appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 1.14 crores within eight weeks, and on such deposit the balance demand was waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

---