Pre-deposit waiver on identical facts requires consistent treatment and fresh merits review without pre-deposit

Where similarly situated parties arose from an identical factual matrix, the Court held that a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit existed and that inconsistent treatment required interference. Because comparable matters against consignees had already resulted in duty confirmation and one had even secured unconditional stay, the insistence on pre-deposit in the petitioners' case was set aside. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the stay application de novo on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit order and the rejection of the modification application ought to be set aside and the matter reconsidered without insisting on pre-deposit.

Analysis: The petitioners were proceeded against as consignors in respect of goods cleared against CT-3 certificates, while in identical matters involving the consignees the duty had been demanded and confirmed in their hands, and in one such comparable matter unconditional stay had been granted. In that backdrop, the Court found a prima facie case for unconditional waiver and held that the Tribunal's insistence on pre-deposit required interference. The earlier orders were therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits without pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners, and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the stay application de novo without requiring any pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where similarly situated parties have been proceeded against on an identical factual matrix, and the case discloses a prima facie entitlement to relief, the appellate authority should consider waiver of pre-deposit and avoid inconsistent treatment without reasoned justification.

---