Pre-deposit waiver turns on prima facie case and financial hardship; interlocutory discretion was upheld on relevant considerations.

Interference with a tribunal's interlocutory order on pre-deposit was declined where the tribunal applied the correct waiver criteria of prima facie case and financial hardship under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The tribunal found no prima facie case because the fuel oil was admittedly used for power consumption and not for manufacture of fertilizer, and it also noted that financial hardship had not been pleaded. As the discretion was exercised on relevant considerations, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not invoked to disturb the partial pre-deposit direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing partial pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in requiring deposit of part of the duty demand while dispensing with the balance. The Tribunal had considered the two relevant factors for waiver of pre-deposit, namely the existence of a prima facie case and financial hardship. It found that the fuel oil was admittedly used for power consumption and not for the manufacture of fertilizer, and therefore no prima facie case was made out on merits. It also noticed that financial hardship had not been pleaded. The order was based on relevant considerations and being interlocutory in nature did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's partial pre-deposit order failed and interference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an interlocutory order on pre-deposit is not justified where the Tribunal has applied the correct criteria of prima facie case and financial hardship and has exercised its discretion on relevant considerations.

---