Pre-deposit waiver and natural justice required remand where appeal grounds were ignored and a prima facie case existed.

An appellate authority must consider the grounds raised in appeal before directing pre-deposit, and failure to do so breaches natural justice. Where the record shows a prima facie case for waiver, supported by a Board circular, a limitation plea, and a bona fide belief that the intermediate product was not dutiable, insistence on pre-deposit is unjustified. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision on merits without requiring pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration after finding violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The interim direction for pre-deposit was passed without hearing the appellants and without considering the grounds raised in the appeal, resulting in a breach of natural justice. On the material placed, a prima facie case existed for waiver, supported by the Board circular, the plea of limitation, and the contention of bona fide belief regarding non-dutiability of the intermediate product. The authority below had not decided the dispute on merits.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained relief against the pre-deposit direction and secured a fresh adjudication on merits before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority must consider the grounds in appeal before directing pre-deposit, and where a prima facie case and violation of natural justice are shown, waiver and remand are justified.

---