Pre-deposit relief must follow prima facie assessment and undue hardship, not a mechanical demand for deposit.

Discretionary waiver or reduction of pre-deposit requires the applicant to establish prima facie substance in the claim and then undue hardship. The Tribunal erred by imposing a 50% pre-deposit without first examining prima facie case, and financial capacity could not be presumed merely from the appellant's status as a subsidiary concern. The pre-deposit order was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits without any pre-condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of 50% of the duty demand without first considering whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case and whether insistence on such pre-condition was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Grant of discretionary relief against pre-deposit requires the applicant to show, first, prima facie substance in the claim and, thereafter, undue hardship. The Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous approach by declining to examine the prima facie nature of the case and by imposing a pre-condition without applying the correct legal test. Financial capacity could not be presumed merely from the appellant's status as a subsidiary concern, and the merits of the appeal could not be finally examined at that stage.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit order was set aside and the appeal was directed to be heard on merits without any pre-condition, in favour of the petitioner.

---