https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45279 Article 226 interference was declined against a pre-deposit order passed under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority had exercised statutory discretion to grant only partial waiver and required deposit of a reduced amount towards duty and penalty. That approach was treated as reasonable on the facts and consistent with the proviso, which allows relaxation where full pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. The writ court therefore found no basis to disturb the partially favourable pre-deposit direction. en-us Mon, 03 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:51:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45279 Article 226 interference was declined against a pre-deposit order passed under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority had exercised statutory discretion to grant only partial waiver and required deposit of a reduced amount towards duty and penalty. That approach was treated as reasonable on the facts and consistent with the proviso, which allows relaxation where full pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. The writ court therefore found no basis to disturb the partially favourable pre-deposit direction. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45279