Stay and waiver applications require reasoned discretion; pre-deposit order set aside for failure to consider relevant factors.

The HC held that a stay or waiver application under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act must be decided on relevant factors such as prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and public interest, without a detailed merits review. The Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of 25% was unsustainable because it did not show proper application of mind or separate consideration of those factors in each case. The Court also noted the Board circular concerning coercive action where a survey had been floated for notification under Section 11C. The pre-deposit orders were set aside and the appeals were to be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of 25% of the duty demand, without adequately considering the relevant factors under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was sustainable.

Analysis: In deciding a stay or waiver application, the Tribunal is not to conduct a detailed examination of the merits, but it must consider the relevant factors bearing on the exercise of discretion, including the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, possible irreparable loss, and the need to safeguard public interest. The order must reflect application of mind to these matters. The Court found that the Tribunal had not exercised that discretion on sound legal principles and had failed to consider the relevant factors individually in each case. The matter was also viewed against the Board's circular regarding coercive action in cases where a survey had been floated for issuance of notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit orders were unsustainable and were set aside; the appeals were directed to be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

---