Pre-deposit waiver requires a strong prima facie case on merits, limitation, and jurisdiction; partial relief only was granted.

A statutory pre-deposit waiver is not justified unless the appellant shows a strong prima facie case on merits, limitation, or jurisdiction. In this matter, the Tribunal treated the addenda as part of the original show cause notices, found no prima facie defect in the Collector's competence to adjudicate, and noted prior decisions adverse to the appellants on valuation of computers. It also held that the notices appeared to be within time. Full waiver was refused, partial cash deposit was ordered, and recovery of the balance was stayed pending compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants made out a prima facie case for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and staying recovery.

Analysis: The applicants challenged inclusion of peripheral value in the assessable value of computers, the validity of the addenda to the show cause notices, the competence of the Collector to adjudicate, and the invocation of limitation. The Tribunal noted earlier decisions against the applicants on valuation, held that the addenda were to be read with the original notices, and found no prima facie infirmity in the Collector's jurisdiction. On the limitation point, the majority held that the notices were within time and that the applicants had not established a strong prima facie case for complete waiver.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit; conditional relief was granted by directing a partial cash deposit and staying recovery of the balance.

Final Conclusion: The stay application was disposed of by granting only partial relief, with the appeal to proceed after compliance with the ordered deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal governed by a statutory pre-deposit requirement, full waiver is not warranted where the appellant fails to establish a strong prima facie case on merits, limitation, or jurisdiction.

---