Pre-deposit orders must consider financial hardship; a mechanical stay direction was set aside and matter restored on merits.

An appellate authority dealing with a stay application must consider the facts of the case, including claimed financial hardship, before directing pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act. A mechanical or stereotyped order that ignores relevant circumstances reflects non-application of mind and is unsustainable. The pre-deposit direction was therefore set aside, and the matter was restored for decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit, after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without considering the appellant's financial hardship and relevant circumstances, was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellate authority was required to consider the facts of each case while dealing with a stay application. The impugned order was found to be mechanical and stereotyped, showing non-application of mind to the appellant's claim of financial constraint. Since the order directing deposit was made without reference to relevant circumstances, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the Commissioner for disposal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---