Undue hardship in pre-deposit cases requires a fair balance with Revenue protection; pre-deposit reduced after inadequate consideration.

In waiver and stay matters, the authority must balance the assessee's claim of undue hardship against the need to safeguard the Revenue, and fix the pre-deposit condition fairly on the facts placed before it. The Tribunal's order was found deficient because it did not specifically engage with the appellant's own contentions or the materials relied on, including the prior view on similar intermediate products used captively. The pre-deposit direction was therefore modified and the amount payable was reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit under the waiver provision required modification, having regard to the assessee's plea of hardship, the materials placed before the Tribunal, and the need to safeguard the Revenue.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the exercise of discretion in fixing the pre-deposit. The appellant contended that its case and the relevant material, including the earlier view on similar intermediate products used captively, had not received adequate consideration. The order under challenge showed no specific reference to the appellant's own contentions. In stay and waiver matters, the decision must balance the existence of undue hardship against protection of the Revenue, and the pre-deposit condition must be fixed fairly on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit direction was modified and the amount payable by the appellant was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of the pre-deposit amount, and the matter was otherwise disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: In considering waiver or pre-deposit, the authority must assess undue hardship on the assessee and impose only such conditions as are necessary to safeguard the Revenue.

---