https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185146 Availability of an alternative appellate remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the supposed appeal is conditional and uncertain. In the context of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the authority must consider undue hardship, financial hardship, prima facie merits, and record reasons before refusing waiver. A refusal based mainly on absence of documents or balance-sheet assets, without addressing pleaded losses and liabilities, is legally unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the waiver request was required to be reconsidered afresh on relevant legal and factual factors. en-us Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:09:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185146 Availability of an alternative appellate remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the supposed appeal is conditional and uncertain. In the context of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the authority must consider undue hardship, financial hardship, prima facie merits, and record reasons before refusing waiver. A refusal based mainly on absence of documents or balance-sheet assets, without addressing pleaded losses and liabilities, is legally unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the waiver request was required to be reconsidered afresh on relevant legal and factual factors. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185146