At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAINAR SUNDARAM
S.V. Subramanian, Advocate.
As against the impugned order, an appeal is competent. What Mr. S.V. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state is that the amount involved in large and further, Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 would oblige the petitioner to deposit with . the adjudicating authority the amount. Subject matter of the impugned order, as a condition precedent for entertaining of the appeal. But I find that the proviso to the said provision certainly gives a discretion to the appellate authority in case such deposit would cause undue hardship to dispense with such deposit. The petitioner can as well plead for the exercise of this discretionary power and I am sure, the appellate authority will consider the pleas of the petitioner, on merits, in this behalf, directing the petitioner to resort to the appeal process. This writ petition is dismissed. However to enable the petition to resort to the appeal process and move the authority concern
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ed for appropriate orders, the impugned order shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from today.