Partial pre-deposit for disputed duty was justified because no financial hardship was shown and abatement conditions appeared unmet.

Partial pre-deposit was justified where the assessee showed no financial hardship and the abatement claim appeared prima facie defective for non-compliance with the mandatory closure-intimation requirement under Rule 96ZO(2)(e). The demand raised in the impugned order, although not expressly set out in the show-cause notice, was treated as a consequential issue linked to rejection of abatement and left for detailed examination in the appeal. The interim relief was therefore limited to a deposit of part of the disputed duty, and full stay of recovery was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be granted in the face of the assessee's prima facie objections; (ii) whether the demand for duty made in the impugned order was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and whether non-compliance with the closure-intimation requirements under Rule 96ZO(2) affected the claim for abatement.

Issue (i): whether complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be granted in the face of the assessee's prima facie objections

Analysis: The application was for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F. The record showed no plea of financial hardship. The claimed abatement had been rejected at least prima facie on the footing that the mandatory requirement of Rule 96ZO(2)(e) was not satisfied. These factors did not justify full waiver at the interim stage.

Conclusion: Complete waiver of pre-deposit was not granted; only partial relief was allowed by directing deposit of a part of the disputed duty.

Issue (ii): whether the demand for duty made in the impugned order was beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and whether non-compliance with the closure-intimation requirements under Rule 96ZO(2) affected the claim for abatement

Analysis: The show-cause notice did not contain an express duty demand, yet the impugned order directed payment of duty. The demand appeared to be consequential to rejection of the abatement claim and was stated to arise under Rule 96ZO(3) rather than under Section 11A. The question whether such a consequential demand could survive despite the notice limitation required detailed examination in the appeal. Independently, the procedural requirement under Rule 96ZO(2)(e) appeared unfulfilled, which prima facie supported rejection of abatement.

Conclusion: The objection on the scope of notice was left for detailed consideration in the appeal, while the abatement rejection was prima facie upheld for interim purposes.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was directed to make a partial pre-deposit as a condition for further prosecution of the appeal, and the request for full stay was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In an application for waiver of pre-deposit, absence of financial hardship and prima facie non-compliance with mandatory conditions governing abatement can justify directing partial deposit, while questions on the precise legality of a consequential demand may be left for final adjudication.

---