Pre-deposit waiver principles require merits-based consideration; routine dismissal for non-deposit was set aside.

An appeal should not be rejected in a routine manner for failure to make full pre-deposit where a prima facie case for waiver is shown. The Tribunal noted that the duty dispute appeared to arise from clearance values said to be below the price declared under Rule 173C, and that the demand seemed confined to clearances where a declaration was required. On that basis, it found sufficient prima facie grounds to waive deposit beyond the amount already paid and held that the stay request had not been properly considered on merits. The dismissal for non-deposit was therefore set aside, and the appeal was directed to proceed without any further deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be dismissed for non-deposit of the entire duty and penalty, and whether a prima facie case existed for waiver of deposit beyond the amount already paid.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a dismissal at the appellate stage solely on the ground of failure to make full pre-deposit. The Tribunal noted that the dispute, on a prima facie view, related to duty demand founded on clearance values said to be below the price declaration under Rule 173C, and that such demand appeared confined to clearances where a declaration was in fact required. On that basis, the Tribunal found a prima facie case for waiving deposit in excess of the amount already deposited. It also held that the appellate authority should not have disposed of the matter in a routine manner without properly considering the stay request on merits.

Conclusion: The dismissal for non-deposit was set aside and the appellant was entitled to have the appeal heard without any further deposit.

---