Pre-deposit waiver requires credible proof of financial hardship; unsupported claims failed, though further time for payment was granted.

Waiver of the balance pre-deposit was refused because the assessee's claim of financial hardship was not backed by credible material, including the balance sheet and earlier accounts. The Tribunal treated the attempt to seek modification after withholding grounds in the initial stay proceedings as inconsistent with compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition. At the same time, it granted further time to make the deposit, and the appeal was made liable to dismissal if the amount was not paid by the stipulated date. Unsupported assertions were therefore held insufficient to justify relaxation of the pre-deposit requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of the remaining pre-deposit was justified on the basis of financial hardship, and whether time should be granted for compliance before dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the claim of financial hardship was not supported by the material produced, including the balance sheet and earlier accounts. It also noticed a recurring practice of withholding grounds in the initial stay proceedings and seeking modification later, which was viewed as an attempt to avoid the statutory pre-deposit requirement. At the same time, the request for further time to make payment was considered reasonable.

Conclusion: Waiver of the remaining pre-deposit was not granted. Time was granted to deposit the balance amount, and the appeal was made liable to dismissal if the amount was not deposited by the stipulated date.

Final Conclusion: The application for further waiver failed, but the matter was kept alive temporarily subject to compliance with the deposit direction.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for waiver of pre-deposit must be supported by credible material showing financial hardship, and unsupported assertions do not justify relaxation of the pre-deposit condition.

---