Court orders appellant to deposit 20,00,000 despite payment plea, highlighting duty, pre-deposit commitment.

The Court directed the appellant to deposit 20,00,000 within three months despite arguments for a 7 1/2 % payment, considering the appellant's cessation of production since 2013. The appellant's commitment to pay the duty demanded and the pre-deposit if the Tribunal ruled against them was noted. The judgment underscores the significance of assessing undue hardship for pre-deposit waivers, adherence to post-amendment obligations, and the Court's discretion in setting deposit amounts based on the appellant's circumstances.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order rejecting plea for waiver of pre-deposit by CESTAT.
2. Consideration of undue hardship for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Dispute on the percentage of pre-deposit required post-amendment by Act 25 of 2014.
4. Decision on the amount to be deposited by the appellant considering the circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of CESTAT rejecting the plea for waiver of pre-deposit. The appellant argued that CESTAT failed to consider the plea and did not undertake the exercise as required by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellant contended that they had stopped production since 2013 and had no finances to pay the pre-deposit amount. The appellant claimed undue hardship and requested the waiver of pre-deposit, emphasizing that they were not liable to pay the duty demanded by the respondent. The appellant undertook to pay the entire amount if the Tribunal's decision went against them.

3. The respondent argued that post-amendment by Act 25 of 2014, the pre-deposit was 7½% of the duty demanded. The respondent disputed the appellant's claim of undue hardship and suggested that even if undue hardship was accepted, a minimum of 7½% of the duty demanded should be paid to protect the Revenue's interest.

4. The Court considered the circumstances, noting that the appellant had stopped production since 2013, causing undue hardship. Despite the appellant's counsel arguing for a 7½% payment, the Court directed the appellant to deposit &8377;20,00,000 within three months, considering the long period without production. The appellant's undertaking to pay the duty demanded and the pre-deposit if the Tribunal's decision went against them was recorded.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering undue hardship for waiver of pre-deposit, post-amendment requirements, and the Court's discretion in determining the deposit amount based on the circumstances presented by the appellant.

---