Pre-deposit waiver under central excise law requires proof of undue hardship, not a bare claim of financial difficulty.

A waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act requires the appellant to plead and establish undue hardship with supporting material; a bare assertion of financial difficulty and prima facie merit is insufficient. The authority must balance undue hardship against protection of revenue, and a direction to deposit less than 10% of the demand reflects a lenient exercise of that discretion. On the facts noted, the pre-deposit order was not shown to be excessive or disproportionate, so interference was not justified and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, requiring deposit of Rs. 4,00,000 out of a duty demand of Rs. 47,93,469, called for interference on the ground of undue hardship.

Analysis: The application for waiver contained only a general assertion of financial hardship and prima facie merit, without supporting particulars or material to show how the burden was excessive or disproportionate. A claim of undue hardship must be pleaded and established by material before the appellate authority. The power under Section 35F is governed by the twin considerations of undue hardship and safeguarding the interests of revenue, and the authority had already taken a lenient view by directing a deposit of less than 10% of the demand.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit order did not warrant interference, and the challenge to it failed.

---