Pre-deposit waiver requires a prima facie case and proven hardship; the deposit direction was upheld with extended time for compliance.

At the stay stage, waiver of pre-deposit depends on whether a prima facie case is shown and whether undue financial hardship is established. The Tribunal found that the petitioner failed on both counts, and the High Court saw no reason to interfere with the deposit amount. The request for waiver was therefore rejected and the deposit direction maintained, though time for compliance was extended.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, and whether any undue financial hardship was shown.

Analysis: The application for waiver was considered on the settled stay-stage principle that the Tribunal is only to see whether a prima facie case exists for dispensing with pre-deposit. On the material placed, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case and had also failed to produce acceptable evidence of financial hardship. The High Court found no reason to differ from that assessment or to interfere with the quantum fixed for deposit. The time for making the deposit was, however, extended.

Conclusion: The request for waiver of pre-deposit was rejected and the deposit direction was maintained, with extension of time for compliance.

---