Pre-deposit waiver in excise appeal denied where merits needed full hearing and financial hardship was not adequately established.

Total waiver of pre-deposit was declined because the merits required detailed examination at final hearing and did not justify complete dispensation. The Tribunal also rejected the plea of financial hardship, noting that the balance sheet disclosed sales turnover and did not establish sufficient grounds for full waiver despite the claim that the unit had been declared sick. It directed partial deposit as a condition for stay, with the balance of duty and penalties waived and recovery stayed during the appeal after compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to total waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal in the light of the prima facie merits of the case and the plea of financial hardship.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a demand of duty, equal penalty and penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal found that the objections raised on merits required detailed examination at the stage of final hearing and did not establish a case for complete waiver. It also considered the financial position shown by the balance sheet and the plea that the unit had been declared sick, but held that the material disclosed sales turnover and did not justify total dispensation of the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Conclusion: Total waiver of pre-deposit was refused. The appellant company was directed to deposit Rs. 8 lakhs and the proprietor of the trading firm was directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs, and upon such deposit the balance of the duty and penalties was waived and recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal.

---