Appellant must deposit duty despite financial hardship or risk appeal rejection. Balancing plea with circumstances.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit specific amounts towards duty within eight weeks despite their financial hardship plea due to closed units. Failure to comply would lead to the vacation of stay and rejection of appeals without prior notice. The Tribunal balanced the financial hardship plea with the case's circumstances, mandating partial pre-deposit while waiving the remaining duty and penalty amounts during the appeal's pendency. Compliance was required by a specified date.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty
2. Applicability of extended period of limitation
3. Financial hardship plea

Analysis:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty: The appellant argued that they were under a bona fide belief regarding the specifications of the inputs received for manufacturing steel tubes. They claimed that the suppliers' regularity and the lack of thickness information on the invoices led to their misunderstanding. The appellant contended that the non-issuance of show cause notices to the suppliers affected the demands against them. Additionally, they cited financial hardship due to their closed units. The appellant asserted that the received coils would eventually meet the prescribed specifications. The opposing party argued against the waiver, emphasizing that the appellant did not have a genuine belief about the input specifications and that financial hardship should not exempt them from pre-deposit requirements.

2. Applicability of extended period of limitation: The opposing party challenged the appellant's claim of being unaware of the input specifications, stating that there was no evidence to support the appellant's belief. They argued that even considering tolerance limits, the inputs fell short of the prescribed specifications. The Tribunal found the contentions on merits and limitation to be debatable, with insufficient evidence to support a strong prima facie case for waiver based on limitation issues.

3. Financial hardship plea: The appellant pleaded financial hardship due to the closure of their units for over two years. Despite this plea, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit specific amounts towards duty within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in the vacation of stay and the rejection of appeals without prior notice. The Tribunal balanced the plea of financial hardship with the overall facts and circumstances of the case, mandating partial pre-deposit while waiving the remaining duty and penalty amounts during the appeal's pendency. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.

---