Pre-deposit conditions may be moderated where financial hardship and prima facie merits make full deposit unduly harsh.

Pre-deposit conditions under Section 35F were moderated where the Tribunal had already weighed the assessee's financial hardship and the prima facie merits of the appeal. The Madras High Court noted that the limitation plea under Section 11A did not justify disturbing that approach, but requiring deposit of the entire differential duty was considered unduly harsh in the circumstances. The deposit condition was therefore reduced to 50% of the differential duty, while the rest of the Tribunal's order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing pre-deposit of the entire differential duty as a condition for hearing the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act required modification.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered both the assessee's financial position and the prima facie merits of the appeal. The plea based on limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was not found sufficient to displace the Tribunal's approach. At the same time, insisting on deposit of the entire duty was considered unduly harsh in the circumstances, while the dispensation of penalty was noted.

Conclusion: The condition of deposit was reduced to 50% of the differential duty, and the Tribunal's order was otherwise confirmed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of relief against the quantum of pre-deposit, while the rest of the Tribunal's order remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: In fixing pre-deposit conditions, the authority must balance financial hardship and prima facie merits, and the condition may be moderated where insisting on full deposit would be unduly harsh.

---