Spencer Consumer Products and Services Limited Madras vs Collector of Central Excise Madras

Nainar Sundaram, J.—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 depot 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 depots would cause

undue hardship to dispense with such deposit. The petitioner can as well pled for the exercise of this discretionary power and I am sure, the

appellate authority will consider the plea 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 concerned for appropriate orders, the

impugned order shall not be implemented for a period of two weeks from today.