Pre-deposit orders require reasoned consideration of financial hardship before waiver or relaxation is refused.

A pre-deposit direction under section 35F of the Central Excise Act could not stand where the Tribunal did not pass a reasoned order on the appellants' plea of financial hardship. The Tribunal had required deposit as a condition for hearing the appeals, but the record showed only a general reference to financial position and no application of mind to the material filed in support of waiver or reduction. Because the rejection of relaxation was unsupported by reasons, the orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the pre-deposit request, with liberty to adduce further evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's orders directing pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be sustained when the plea of financial hardship was not dealt with by a reasoned order.

Analysis: The Tribunal had directed a pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeals, but the orders did not record a proper consideration of the appellants' specific plea of financial hardship. The later order proceeded on the assumption that hardship had already been considered, although the earlier order contained only a general reference to financial position and did not show application of mind to the material placed by the appellants. Since the orders gave no reasons for rejecting the request for waiver or reduction of the deposit, they could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the request for waiver or relaxation of the pre-deposit condition, with liberty to the appellants to adduce further evidence.

---