Pre-deposit waiver denied where natural justice, factory closure abatement, and financial hardship were not prima facie proved.

Waiver of duty pre-deposit was refused because no prima facie case was shown for stay. The appellants had been given personal hearing, sought adjournment, and did not appear on the adjourned date; the alleged reply to the show cause notice was not shown to have been filed before the Commissioner, so violation of natural justice was not established. Abatement for factory closure was also rejected at the stay stage because there was no cogent documentary proof of closure or separate intimation of closure and reopening. Financial hardship was unsupported by certified material, and the clearances had already been made, so full pre-deposit was warranted; recovery of penalty was stayed on compliance with the deposit direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demand on the grounds of alleged violation of natural justice, claim of abatement due to closure of factory, and financial hardship.

Analysis: The appellants had been given an opportunity of personal hearing and had sought adjournment, but did not appear on the adjourned date. Their alleged reply to the show cause notice was not found to have been filed before the Commissioner. On the issue of abatement, the record did not show any cogent documentary proof of closure or separate intimation of closure and reopening, so the claim could not be accepted at the stage of stay. The plea of financial hardship was not supported by certified material, and the demand arose from clearances already made. In the absence of a prima facie case and with balance of convenience not favouring waiver, full pre-deposit was warranted.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to waiver of the duty pre-deposit, though recovery of the penalty was stayed upon compliance with the deposit direction.

---