Pre-deposit waiver for a sick industrial company cannot be refused without considering BIFR proceedings and pending appeals.

Refusal to waive statutory pre-deposit was held unsustainable where the appellant claimed sick industrial company status and pending proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The Court noted that the Tribunal had directed deposit of the entire duty demand without properly considering those relevant facts, and the earlier writ order relied on by the Revenue could not assist because an intra-court appeal against that order was still pending. The impugned refusal was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the renewed waiver request in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's refusal to waive the statutory pre-deposit could be sustained when the appellant was claimed to be a sick company with proceedings pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.

Analysis: The Tribunal had declined waiver and directed deposit of the entire duty demand, but the record showed that the appellant asserted sick industrial status and pendency before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The Court also held that the earlier writ order relied upon by the Revenue could not assist it because an intra-court appeal against that order was pending. In light of the Supreme Court decisions relied upon, the refusal to consider waiver on the relevant facts was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order refusing waiver of pre-deposit was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to consider the petitioner's renewed waiver request in accordance with law.

---