Pre-deposit waiver requires prima facie case, balance of convenience and undue hardship; limited deposit directions were upheld.

In considering dispensation of pre-deposit, the authority must assess the prima facie case, balance of convenience and whether the deposit requirement causes undue hardship. Applying that test, the Tribunal had already granted substantial relief by waiving most of the pre-deposit and directing only a 10% deposit with security for part of the balance. The appellant's plea of financial hardship was not sufficient, particularly in light of its own assertion of financial stability. The Delhi HC held that the limited deposit direction did not warrant interference, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing deposit of 10% of the penalty amount and furnishing of security for the balance warranted interference in an application for dispensation of pre-deposit.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the Tribunal's exercise of discretion on waiver of pre-deposit. The governing test at that stage is whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case, where the balance of convenience lies, and whether insistence on deposit would cause undue hardship. The appellant relied on financial hardship, but the Tribunal had already granted substantial relief by waiving a major part of the deposit and requiring only 10% to be deposited with security for part of the balance. In those circumstances, and in view of the appellant's own claim of financial stability, the direction could not be characterised as causing undue hardship.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order did not call for interference and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In deciding dispensation of pre-deposit, the authority must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience and undue hardship, and a limited deposit direction will not be interfered with absent demonstrable undue hardship.

---