Pre-deposit conditions upheld where retraction was unproved and financial hardship was not substantiated.

A discretionary pre-deposit condition requiring 50% of the penalty for hearing an appeal on merits was upheld because the appellant did not substantiate any retraction of the incriminating statement before the authorities and failed to place credible material showing genuine financial hardship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal's direction could not be treated as unjustified, and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty as a condition for hearing the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The appellant sought to resist the pre-deposit mainly on the basis that the case rested on a statement said to have been retracted and on alleged financial hardship. The record, however, did not show any retraction being produced before the authorities, and the adjudicating authority had recorded that no retraction was on record. No credible material was placed before the Tribunal to establish inability to make the deposit. In these circumstances, the condition imposed by the Tribunal could not be said to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit order was upheld and no interference was called for; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party does not substantiate retraction of the incriminating statement and also fails to establish genuine financial hardship, a court will not interfere with a discretionary pre-deposit condition imposed for entertaining the appeal.

---