https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97987 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. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:17:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97987 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97987