Undue hardship for pre-deposit requires more than a strong prima facie case; writ interference was refused.

A writ challenge to a Tribunal's order directing partial pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was rejected because undue hardship was not shown. The Court held that a prima facie case, even a strong one, does not by itself satisfy the undue hardship requirement for interference under Article 226. On the material before it, compliance with the reduced pre-deposit amount was not shown to cause hardship warranting writ relief, so the challenge to the pre-deposit direction failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the Tribunal's order directing partial pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the ground of undue hardship.

Analysis: The Tribunal had treated the dispute as arguable and granted only partial exemption from pre-deposit. The Court held that the existence of a prima facie case, even a strong one, does not by itself establish undue hardship for the purposes of the proviso to Section 35F. On the material placed, there was nothing to show that compliance with the reduced pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000 would itself cause undue hardship warranting writ interference.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the pre-deposit order failed.

---