Pre-deposit requirement cannot stand where liability and true manufacturer are uncertain in a dummy-unit dispute.

Pre-deposit of duty and penalty was not justified where the adjudication order was internally ambiguous on the true manufacturer and the enforceability of the demand against alleged dummy units. The order proceeded on the basis that the units were not separate entities, yet it failed to identify which concern was liable and imposed penalties on each firm and the proprietor, leaving the basis of liability uncertain. Because those prima facie ambiguities went to the foundation of the demand, the insistence on deposit before hearing the appeal was set aside, and the appeal was to be decided according to law without any pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in insisting upon deposit of duty and penalty before entertaining the appeal, where the adjudication order itself was ambiguous as to the true manufacturer and the liability of the alleged dummy units.

Analysis: The adjudication order proceeded on the footing that the units were not separate entities and were dummy units, yet it did not identify which concern was the true manufacturer or specify against whom the duty demand was enforceable. The order also imposed penalties on each firm and on the proprietor, creating uncertainty on the basis of liability. In view of these prima facie ambiguities, insistence on pre-deposit was not warranted.

Conclusion: The insistence on deposit was set aside and the appeal was directed to be disposed of in accordance with law without requiring any deposit.

---