Pre-deposit compliance and financial hardship claims: unsupported repetition will not justify modification or save an appeal.

Repeated pleas of financial hardship, without fresh documentary support, do not justify modification of an existing pre-deposit order. The tribunal found that the hardship claim had already been rejected earlier and was again unsupported by evidence, so the request to vary the stay direction was refused. As no compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was shown, the statutory condition for continuation of the appeal was not met, and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pre-deposit direction deserved modification on the ground of financial hardship; (ii) whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the pre-deposit direction deserved modification on the ground of financial hardship.

Analysis: The plea of financial hardship had already been considered in the earlier stay order and was found unsupported by any documentary evidence. In the present application, the same plea was repeated without any fresh material or supporting evidence.

Conclusion: The request for modification of the stay order was rejected and the miscellaneous application was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: No evidence of compliance with the pre-deposit direction was produced. In the absence of the mandated deposit, the statutory condition for continuation of the appeal was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The pre-deposit direction remained unmodified, the miscellaneous application failed, and the appeal stood terminated for want of compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeated plea of financial hardship, unsupported by fresh documentary evidence, does not justify modification of a pre-deposit order, and failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition warrants dismissal of the appeal.

---