Partial pre-deposit and financial hardship: Tribunal's assessment upheld where available records did not prove inability to deposit.

Interference with a partial pre-deposit order under Section 35F was declined because the petitioner did not produce material proving financial hardship. The balance-sheet relied on did not establish inability to deposit the reduced amount, and the Tribunal was entitled to assess hardship as on the date of its order on the basis of available stock and sundry debtor figures. The Tribunal also considered that the dispute in appeal was factual, turning on evidence about alleged removal of defective forgings as waste and scrap in breach of the applicable rules, so the order was not found unreasonable or unsupported by judicial considerations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing partial pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 called for interference on the grounds of financial hardship and non-consideration of the prima facie case.

Analysis: The petitioner failed to place material before the Tribunal to substantiate a claim of hardship, and the balance-sheet relied upon did not establish an inability to deposit the reduced amount. The Tribunal was required to assess the position as on the date of its order, and the available figures of stock and sundry debtors negatived the plea that the petitioner could not arrange the directed deposit. The Tribunal had also considered the nature of the dispute and recorded that the issue in appeal was factual, depending on appreciation of evidence, including the allegation of removal of defective forgings as waste and scrap in violation of the relevant rules.

Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by judicial considerations, and no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

---