Pre-deposit discretion under excise law upheld where financial capacity and relevant turnover data supported the Tribunal's waiver decision.

The scope of pre-deposit review under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is confined to undue hardship, especially the appellant's financial capacity to make the deposit. The Tribunal's discretion was sustained because it considered the appellant's turnover and receivables, and also waived pre-deposit for one category of demand while limiting the deposit to the balance. Those factors were relevant to assessing ability to pay, and no irrelevant consideration or perversity in the exercise of discretion was shown. The pre-deposit condition was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order requiring pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 caused undue hardship or was perverse.

Analysis: The scope at the stage of pre-deposit is confined to undue hardship, particularly the financial capacity of the appellant to make the deposit. The Tribunal had considered the appellant's turnover and receivables and had also granted waiver for one category of demand, limiting the pre-deposit to the remaining amount. Those factors were relevant to the assessment of financial ability, and no irrelevant consideration or perversity was shown in the exercise of discretion under Section 35F.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit condition was upheld and the challenge to it failed.

---