Pre-deposit discretion under appeal-stay law upheld where authority weighed hardship factors and granted partial waiver of interest and penalty.

Section 35-F stay jurisdiction requires the appellate authority to assess prima facie case, balance of convenience, financial capacity and undue hardship before fixing pre-deposit. The authority's order was found to reflect those considerations and to be lenient by limiting pre-deposit to 50% of the confirmed duty while waiving interest and penalty. The High Court found no legal infirmity or basis to interfere with that discretionary exercise. Time was nevertheless granted to make the pre-deposit so that the appeals could be heard on merits thereafter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's direction requiring pre-deposit of 50% of the confirmed duty, while waiving interest and penalty, called for interference on the ground of financial hardship and undue hardship.

Analysis: The appeal-stay jurisdiction under Section 35-F requires the appellate authority to consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, financial capacity of the appellant and undue hardship. The impugned order showed that these factors were considered and that the authority had adopted a lenient approach by restricting the pre-deposit to 50% of the duty confirmed while waiving the pre-deposit of interest and penalty. In such circumstances, the High Court found no legal infirmity in the exercise of discretion by the appellate authority. However, to enable compliance, time was granted to pay the pre-deposit and the appeals were directed to be heard thereafter.

Conclusion: The direction for pre-deposit was upheld and no interference was made with the discretionary order, though the petitioner was granted time to comply and pursue the appeals on merits.

---