Pre-deposit waiver under section 35F stands where no undue hardship is shown and factual issues remain for appeal.

Interference under Article 226 with a Tribunal's partial waiver of pre-deposit under section 35F is unwarranted where no undue hardship is shown and the Tribunal's discretion is not otherwise arbitrary. The Court noted that the limitation objection under the proviso to section 11A had not been raised before the Tribunal and turned on questions of fact left for the pending appeal. It also held that the valuation issue concerning gravure printing cylinder cost was fact-dependent and had been examined only prima facie for waiver purposes. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable on the grounds urged, and the pre-deposit order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order granting only partial waiver of pre-deposit under section 35F was illegal or irregular warranting interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The petition challenged the Tribunal's order directing deposit of a substantial amount as a condition for hearing the appeal. The Court noted that the plea that the demand was barred beyond six months under the proviso to section 11A had not been raised before the Tribunal and involved questions of fact for examination in the appeal. The Court also held that no plea of financial hardship had been placed before the Tribunal, and in the absence of any showing of undue hardship the Tribunal's discretion under section 35F could not be faulted. On the disputed question whether the cost of preparing the gravure printing cylinder formed part of the excisable value, the Court held that the issue was fact-dependent and the Tribunal had only recorded a prima facie view for the purpose of the waiver application.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order disclosed no illegality or irregularity calling for interference under Article 226, and the writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged.

Final Conclusion: Judicial interference was declined, and the partial waiver order of the Tribunal was allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a pre-deposit order is unwarranted where no undue hardship is shown, and fact-dependent objections to limitation or valuation are left to be decided in the pending appeal.

---