1998 (5) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate, Tribunal, New Delhi whereby it partly allowed the petitioner's application under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise and Salt and directed it to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/. 2. I have heard Shri J. Mathur learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Shiv Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. A demand of Rs. 1,64, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cause undue hardship to the appellant. The petitioner's contention was that it has a good case on merit and therefore, it should be exempted from making the deposit. The Tribunal has stated that the issue is arguable and it granted partial exemption by directing the petitioner to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. Shri Mathur strenuously contended that it has already been held that the parts of machi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal has directed to deposit only Rs. 50,000/- and therefore, there is nothing to show that even in the deposit of this amount the petitioner is likely to suffer on undue hardship. No cause for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, therefore, made out. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. However the petitioner is permitted to take deposit in compliance with the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X