Pre-deposit exemption on financial hardship was denied where factual claims were unproven and tribunal discretion was upheld.

A tribunal's refusal to grant exemption from statutory pre-deposit on grounds of financial hardship was upheld where the claimant's assertion of no immovable property was found incorrect and ownership of a factory was established. Allegations that the factory had been destroyed and that a bank had filed a civil suit were not accepted as sufficient proof of hardship justifying waiver. The refusal was treated as a discretionary decision based on the facts found, and no error of fact or law was shown to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's refusal to grant exemption from the statutory pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 called for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the plea of financial hardship and found that the petitioner's assertion of absence of immovable property was incorrect as he owned a factory. The further assertion that the factory had been destroyed and that a bank had filed a civil suit was not accepted as sufficient to establish such hardship as would justify exemption from deposit. The refusal of exemption was thus an exercise of discretion on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order did not disclose any error of fact or law warranting interference in writ jurisdiction, and the challenge failed.

---