Pre-deposit hardship in excise appeals requires consideration of individual financial difficulty before insisting on deposit.

In an appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, the appellate authority had to consider the appellant's individual financial hardship before insisting on full pre-deposit under Section 35F. Where the petitioner's separate hardship was not examined, refusal of stay risked loss of the appeal right and justified judicial interference. The court did not assess the merits of the underlying duty liability, as the appeal was still pending. Relief was granted against dismissal for non-compliance, and the appellate authority was directed not to dismiss the appeal if one-half of the duty demand was deposited within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the petitioner could be exempted from full pre-deposit under Section 35F on the ground of financial hardship, and whether the appellate authority was required to consider the petitioner's individual hardship before insisting on deposit of the duty demand.

Analysis: The petitioner was jointly liable with another entity for the duty demand, but the appellate authority had not examined the petitioner's separate financial hardship before refusing stay as to the duty component. The Court held that the possibility of hardship and loss of the right of appeal justified judicial interference. At the same time, it did not go into the merits of the petitioner's underlying liability, since the appeal remained pending before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to relief against dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, and the appellate authority was directed not to dismiss the appeal if one-half of the duty demand was deposited within the stipulated time.

---