Pre-deposit waiver under excise law requires real consideration of undue hardship; refusal was set aside for non-application of mind.

Section 35F permits waiver of pre-deposit where insisting on deposit would cause undue hardship, subject to conditions safeguarding revenue. The impugned order was unsustainable because it focused on the merits of the appeal and did not consider the petitioner's hardship claim in the waiver application. The High Court therefore set aside the refusal to waive pre-deposit and directed fresh reconsideration of the waiver request after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing to waive the pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was sustainable when the authority had not considered the claim of undue hardship.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 35F permits dispensation with pre-deposit where deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship, subject to such conditions as may safeguard revenue. The impugned order concentrated on the merits of the appeal and did not address the hardship pleaded by the petitioner. As the statutory requirement of considering hardship was not applied in the waiver application, the order was found to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refusal to waive pre-deposit was set aside and the application for waiver was directed to be reconsidered afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

---