Tribunal upholds pre-deposit order despite appellant's financial plea. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 13 lakhs for hearing the appeal, citing financial burden and hindrance to their right of appeal. Despite the appellant's plea of financial difficulty, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting the claim and upheld the pre-deposit order. The comparison with a previous case granting 100% waiver was dismissed, emphasizing the discretion in such decisions. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, directing the appellant to pre-deposit the entire amount within eight weeks, with the judgment noting the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Direction to deposit pre-deposit amount of Rs. 13,00,000 for hearing the appeal.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's order in directing the pre-deposit amount.
3. Consideration of "undue hardship" by the Tribunal.
4. Financial burden on the appellant.
5. Comparison with a previous order granting 100% waiver of pre-deposit.
6. Burden of proof on the manufacturer for availing CENVAT Credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 13 lakhs for hearing the appeal, arguing that they are not liable to pay the Excise Duty demanded by the respondent. The appellant contended that the pre-deposit condition imposed by the Tribunal hindered their right of appeal and access to a forum for redressal, rendering the statutory remedy illusory.

2. The appellant's counsel emphasized that the pre-deposit amount was a severe financial burden and presented statements from the Managing Director to support their case. They also referred to a previous case where 100% waiver of pre-deposit was granted, seeking similar relief in this appeal.

3. The Department Representative alleged that the appellant availed credit on non-duty paid scrap using misleading invoices. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the appellant's statements regarding the use of virgin materials as scrap, stating that the burden of proof for CENVAT Credit admissibility lies with the manufacturer. The Tribunal was not convinced of a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit.

4. Despite the appellant's financial difficulty plea, no substantial evidence was provided to support the claim. The Tribunal's decision to order pre-deposit of Rs. 13 lakhs, lower than the total recovery amount, was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

5. The comparison with the case of Sam Turbo Industries Ltd., where 100% waiver was granted, was dismissed as the previous order was interim and discretionary. The Tribunal clarified that the different facts of the cases warranted varied decisions, and the appellant failed to establish grounds for interference based on the previous order.

6. Ultimately, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to pre-deposit the entire amount within eight weeks. The judgment highlighted the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.

---