Pre-deposit waiver must consider undue hardship and revenue protection before insisting on part payment

Pre-deposit waiver under the governing proviso must be decided on relevant considerations, including undue hardship to the appellant and protection of the revenue. A mere prima facie view is insufficient where the order does not show reasoned application of those factors. As the impugned order failed to address undue hardship or the need to safeguard revenue, it was interfered with and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and allowing it to establish the hardship claimed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing pre-deposit of part of the duty demanded while disposing of the waiver application was sustainable in the absence of consideration of undue hardship and the interest of revenue under the governing proviso.

Analysis: The power to dispense with pre-deposit is discretionary, but it must be exercised on relevant considerations. The appellant seeking waiver must show undue hardship, and the authority must also protect the revenue. The impugned order recorded a prima facie view but did not address either the question of undue hardship or the need to safeguard revenue in a reasoned manner. The matter therefore required fresh consideration after giving the appellant an opportunity to establish the hardship said to arise from the pre-deposit condition.

Conclusion: The order on waiver of pre-deposit was interfered with and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration and disposal after hearing the petitioner.

---