https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102045 Permission to destroy cut tobacco under Rule 196B(ii) was treated as dependent on prior remission of duty under Rule 49. Because the record showed no specific request for remission and no order granting it, the appellant could not establish a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit. Closure of the factory and financial hardship were nevertheless considered, so only partial relief was granted by directing deposit of a reduced amount, with waiver and stay for the balance on compliance. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:12:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102045 Permission to destroy cut tobacco under Rule 196B(ii) was treated as dependent on prior remission of duty under Rule 49. Because the record showed no specific request for remission and no order granting it, the appellant could not establish a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit. Closure of the factory and financial hardship were nevertheless considered, so only partial relief was granted by directing deposit of a reduced amount, with waiver and stay for the balance on compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102045