Pre-deposit waiver requires consideration of hardship and prior identical orders; ignoring both makes the refusal unsustainable.

Refusal of full waiver of pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act was set aside because the authority did not consider the statutory requirement of hardship or the earlier waiver order in an identical matter. That non-consideration of relevant factors amounted to non-application of mind, rendering the order unsustainable. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision on the waiver application in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing full waiver of pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was vitiated for non-application of mind to the question of hardship and the earlier waiver order in an identical matter.

Analysis: The order on waiver did not show any consideration of the statutory requirement of hardship under the proviso to Section 35F. The Commissioner (Appeals) also overlooked the earlier order passed by his predecessor granting full waiver in an identical situation. This absence of consideration of the relevant factors rendered the impugned order unsustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order refusing complete waiver of pre-deposit was invalid and was quashed, with a direction to pass a fresh order on the waiver application in accordance with law.

---