Pre-deposit waiver cannot be denied without considering valuation objections under the Central Excise Act; order set aside.

The waiver of pre-deposit could not be refused without considering the statutory contention on valuation under Section 4(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act, where the assessee raised an arguable issue whether excise duty, sales tax and other taxes could be included in the assessable value. Because that contention was not examined, the order directing deposit of 10% duty was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, subject to the petitioner furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing deposit of 10% duty while deciding the waiver application was sustainable when the applicability of Section 4(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act was not considered.

Analysis: The appeal involved an arguable question on valuation of excisable goods, namely whether duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes could be added to the assessable value. The appellate authority, while dealing with the waiver of pre-deposit, did not consider this statutory contention at all. In such circumstances, the order refusing complete exemption from pre-deposit could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, subject to the petitioner furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the pre-deposit direction, and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal of the appeal on the terms indicated.

---