Pre-deposit relief in excise penalty dispute refused where the penalty provision remained arguable at the interim stage.

A dispute over stock-taking shortages raised whether Rule 223A, rather than Rule 173Q, governed the penalty under excise rules. The matter was considered arguable, but the penalty provision could not be treated as wholly inapplicable at the pre-deposit stage. Complete waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty was therefore refused, and only a partial deposit was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of pre-deposit of the entire penalty imposed under the excise rules should be granted at the interim stage.

Analysis: The application raised a dispute about the correct penal provision applicable to stock-taking shortages, with reliance placed on the view that Rule 223A may be attracted instead of Rule 173Q. The matter was found arguable, but the invoked penalty provision could not be treated as wholly inapplicable at the stage of considering pre-deposit. The plea for complete waiver was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: Complete waiver of pre-deposit was refused and a partial deposit was directed.

---