Pre-deposit waiver under Central Excise law requires proved hardship and a balanced exercise of discretion; partial deposit was upheld.

Section 35F of the Central Excise Act permits waiver of pre-deposit only where the appellate authority is satisfied that deposit would cause undue hardship, while balancing protection of the Revenue. The waiver decision turns on the prima facie case and proof of financial hardship, and reasonable conditions may be imposed. On the facts stated, no financial hardship was pleaded or proved, and the Tribunal had already taken a lenient view by directing deposit of only a small portion of the duty or penalty while waiving the balance. The order was therefore treated as a proper exercise of discretion and the challenge to partial pre-deposit failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing only a partial pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in refusing complete waiver of deposit pending appeal.

Analysis: Section 35F empowers the appellate authority to dispense with pre-deposit subject to conditions where deposit would cause undue hardship, while also requiring safeguarding of the Revenue. The decision on waiver depends upon consideration of prima facie case and financial hardship, and the authority may impose reasonable conditions. In the present matter, no financial hardship was pleaded or proved, and the Tribunal had already taken a lenient view by directing deposit of only a small portion of the duty or penalty while waiving the balance. The impugned order therefore reflected a proper exercise of discretion and did not disclose any material illegality.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed, and the direction for partial pre-deposit was upheld.

---