Pre-deposit waiver must consider financial hardship; silence on the plea cannot justify insisting on deposit.

Pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act could not be insisted upon without proper consideration of the assessee's pleaded financial hardship. The record showed that a specific plea of financial stringency, supported by the balance sheet, had been advanced in support of waiver of pre-deposit. Mere silence on that plea in the impugned order did not justify an assumption that it had not been raised. The order requiring deposit was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the waiver request on the basis of financial hardship.

---

---

Issues: Whether the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be insisted upon without properly considering the assessee's plea of financial hardship.

Analysis: The petition challenged the Tribunal's direction requiring deposit of part of the excise duty amount. The pleadings and accompanying balance sheet showed that a specific plea of financial stringency had been made in support of waiver of pre-deposit. The Court held that the mere absence of a reference to that plea in the impugned order could not justify an assumption that the plea had not been advanced, and the material placed on record required consideration.

Conclusion: The insistence on pre-deposit without proper consideration of financial hardship was not sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh order after considering the assessee's financial hardship.

---