Pre-deposit orders may be disturbed only for substantial hardship; no interference was warranted on the facts stated.

Interference with a CESTAT interlocutory pre-deposit order is warranted only where the condition causes excessive or substantial hardship or otherwise prejudices the right to be heard. On the facts stated, no such hardship was shown, and the findings below were not regarded as meritless. The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the direction requiring pre-deposit of part of the duty demand, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the CESTAT's interlocutory order directing pre-deposit of 15% of the duty demand.

Analysis: Interference with a pre-deposit order is justified only where the condition imposed causes excessive or substantial hardship or otherwise prejudices the right to be heard. On the facts, no such hardship was shown. The Court also found that the findings recorded below could not be characterized as meritless.

Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the pre-deposit order; the challenge failed.

---