Pre-deposit discretion under Section 35F must consider a prima facie case, not hardship alone.

Section 35F pre-deposit discretion is not limited to financial hardship; it must also reflect whether a prima facie case exists. Where conflicting views of two High Courts indicate a plausible case in favour of the appellant, insisting on deposit of the duty amount is arbitrary and unsupported by sound principles. The pre-deposit condition was therefore dispensed with, and the appeal was to be heard without requiring payment of the duty amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in insisting on pre-deposit of the duty amount under Section 35F pending the appeal.

Analysis: The statutory discretion under Section 35F requires consideration of the existence of a prima facie case and is not confined to financial hardship alone. The existence of contrary views of two High Courts was treated as sufficient indication of a prima facie case in favour of the appellant, rendering insistence on deposit arbitrary and unsupported by sound principles.

Conclusion: The condition of pre-deposit was dispensed with and the appeal was directed to be heard without insisting on deposit of the duty amount.

---