Pre-deposit discretion under excise law upheld, with deposit time extended after delay in prosecuting the matter.

Under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, a pre-deposit condition for hearing the appeal depends on the appellant's prima facie case, financial hardship and undue hardship. The Tribunal, finding no strong prima facie case and no established financial hardship, still exercised discretion to direct a partial deposit instead of the full demanded amount. The Court declined to interfere with that discretionary order, but extended the time for making the deposit because of delay in communication and prosecution of the matter, while leaving further extension to the Tribunal if needed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, requiring a part-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal, called for interference, and whether the time granted for making the deposit should be extended.

Analysis: The application under Section 35F required consideration of the appellant's financial position, the existence of a prima facie case, and the question whether insistence on deposit would cause undue hardship. The Tribunal had found that the appellant did not have a strong prima facie case and that the plea of financial hardship was not made out, yet it granted partial relief by directing deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 instead of the full amount demanded. The Court found no reason to interfere with that discretionary order. At the same time, considering the time lost in communication and prosecution of the matter, the Court extended the time for making the deposit.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's order was rejected, but the time for deposit was extended up to 10-5-1993, with liberty to the Tribunal to grant further extension if necessary.

---