per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- After hearing both sides, we find that the delay of 7 days involved in the filing of the appeals has been satisfactorily explained. The COD applications are, therefore, allowed.

2. The stay . applications filed by the appellants seek waiver and stay in respect of the respective dues adjudged against them. The main appellant/assessee is aggrieved by demand of duty of over Rs. 62 lakhs and equal amount of penalty while the other appellants are aggrieved by the respective penalties imposed on them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On a perusal of the records, we find that the assessee claimed the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 before the adjudicating authority by claiming that they had undertaken job work for a beverage manufacturer who allegedly supplied the raw materials for the job work without availing CENVAT credit. The assessee manufactured cartons out of such raw materials and supplied the cartons to the beverage manufacturer but without payment of duty. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that they cannot be faulted for any omission of the raw materials supplier. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) that the conditions laid down in para 2 of the Notification were not satisfied and hence the exemption was not admissible to the assessee. Considering the facts of this case, we have not found compliance with the above conditions inasmuch as there is no evidence of any declaration of the beverage manufacturer having been obtained and submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the assessee's factory. There is no evidence of the job-worked goods having been used in the manufacture of excisable products by the beverage manufacturer. The learned counsel has referred to job work challans issued by the beverage manufacturer but these would not go anywhere near satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Notification. It is curious to note that, even according to the assessee, the beverage manufacturer did not manufacture any excisable product. If that be so, we are at a loss to understand how that party would fit in the status of the 'principal manufacturer' for the job work claimed to have been undertaken by the assessee. Prima facie, denial of the benefit of the above Notification to the assessee is well-founded. We further note that the assessee-appellant has paid an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs before issue of show-cause notice and this payment stands appropriated. The learned counsel has made a fervent plea for waiver and stay on the stated ground of financial hardships. It is submitted that the assessee-appellant is a small scale industrial unit and has no wherewithal to pre-deposit any amount. This plea has also been contested by the learned Additional Commissioner(AR).

3. Considering the fervent plea of financial hardships raised by the learned counsel albeit without documentary evidence, we take the view that the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs deposited by the assessee-appellant would suffice the purpose of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. However, in the absence of plea of financial hardships by other appellants, we are inclined to direct reasonable pre-deposits. We direct them to pre-deposit Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each towards the respective penalties. These deposits shall be made within six weeks. Report compliance to the Assistant Registrar on 11-12-2012. Assistant Registrar to report on 18-12-2012. Subject to due compliance, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the balance amount of penalties on the appellants as also the balance amount of duty and interest thereon.