Pre-deposit waiver in excise dispute: no prima facie case barred full relief, but financial hardship justified partial dispensation.

A stay application for excise duty and penalty turned on two factors: the Tribunal found no prima facie infirmity in the demand, because the adjudicating authority had already given detailed reasons for treating the goods as excisable; complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore declined on merits. At the same time, the applicant's unrebutted plea that the unit had been closed and had limited operations supported substantial financial relief, so only a partial deposit was ordered. On compliance with that deposit, the balance duty and entire penalty were dispensed with pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in relation to the duty and penalty demands. (ii) Whether financial hardship and the closed status of the unit justified substantial dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in relation to the duty and penalty demands.

Analysis: The applicant challenged the demand on the basis that the goods were only semi-finished job-work products, not excisable, and not marketable as such. The adjudicating authority had already examined the nature of the goods, the manufacturing processes, the applicability of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and Rule 2A of the Interpretative Rules of the Central Excise Tariff, and had recorded detailed reasons for treating the goods as excisable and for fastening duty liability. On the material placed before it, the Tribunal found no prima facie infirmity in that reasoning.

Conclusion: No complete waiver of pre-deposit was granted on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether financial hardship and the closed status of the unit justified substantial dispensation of the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The balance sheets indicated limited operations and receivables, and the plea that the unit had been closed since August 1990 remained unrebutted. Although the affidavit did not expressly plead financial incapacity, the Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted bar-based plea and took a practical view of the appellant's financial position while balancing the revenue interest involved.

Conclusion: The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 5,00,000, and on such compliance the balance duty and the entire penalty stood dispensed with pending appeal.

Final Conclusion: The stay application was substantially allowed with partial pre-deposit, leaving the appeal to proceed on merits after compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: In a stay application involving a large duty demand, complete waiver may be declined where no prima facie infirmity is shown in the demand, while substantial relief can still be granted on a credible, unrebutted showing of financial difficulty.

---