Pre-deposit waiver under excise rules limited to partial relief where abatement claim was only prima facie arguable.

A pre-deposit request under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 turned on whether the appellant had shown a sufficient prima facie case for waiver of recovery during the appeal. The appellant relied on closure intimation, production resumption records, and a certificate explaining the absence of electricity meter readings because the meter room had been sealed. The Tribunal treated the abatement claim as arguable and requiring evidence to be assessed by the lower authority, but found that the material did not justify complete waiver at the interim stage. Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted, with the balance left stayed subject to compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the duty demand during pendency of the appeal in respect of the claimed abatement period under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The appellant relied on compliance with the closure intimation, production resumption records, and a certificate regarding inability to furnish electricity meter readings because the meter room was sealed by the electricity authority. The Tribunal held that the claim was arguable and required appreciation of evidence by the lower authority. On a prima facie assessment, the case did not justify complete waiver of the duty demand.

Conclusion: Partial waiver of pre-deposit was granted, with deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- directed and waiver of the balance amount along with stay of recovery during pendency of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted only to a limited extent, and the matter remained pending subject to compliance with the ordered deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: In a pre-deposit application, where the dispute requires appreciation of evidence and only a prima facie case is shown, complete waiver may be declined while granting partial waiver and stay.

---