JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This writ petition arises from the order dated 30.5.1986 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the aforesaid Tribunal against he order dated 6.3 1986 of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Meerut (Annexure 1 'to the petition) imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 As the petitioner failed to deposit the duty in cash, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the same within 8 weeks. petitioner The contention of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs. 1,58,316 71 on account of the duty paid by them on input aluminium claimed to have been used in the manufacture of aluminium strips during the period September 1981 to April 1982 to the Assistant Collector, Meerut on 7.6.1982 refund-able from the Department and, therefore, the amount of duty to be paid with the appeal be adjusted was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 30.5.1986 (Annexure 2" to the petition) 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal took the view that the issue of refund of the duty did not arise in the appeal filed before the Tribunal and, therefore, the appeal could be admitted only when the petitioner deposited the duty in cash. admitted 4. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged and therefore, this petition is disposed of finally. exchanged and, 5. The reasoning given by the Tribunal that the question of refund of Rs. 1,58 316.71 was not involved in the appeal sought to be filed before it, was technically correct. But the proviso of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, obligates the Tribunal to consider the circumstances shown by the petitioner causing undue hardship to it and then take a decision as to whether the precedent condition of deposit could have been diluted or-dispensed with a together. The claim of the petitioner was that undue heirship was caused to it because a far greater amount to the tune of Rs. 1,58,316.71 was due from the department as refund and that claim was not settled by the Department. This is how the petitioner contended that there was financial stringency and it was difficult to comply with the requirement of deposit. 1,58,316.71 was due from the department as refund and that claim was not settled by the Department. This is how the petitioner contended that there was financial stringency and it was difficult to comply with the requirement of deposit. The tribunal ought to have considered this circumstance, shown by the petitioner. Looking at the circumstances, it would be proper if the Tribunal calls upon the petitioner to deposit only 50% of the amount demanded by the order dated 30.5.1986 (Annexure "2" to the petition) within six weeks from today. After the 50% amount is deposited within six weeks from today, the Tribunal will admit and dispose of the appeal according to law. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed in the light of the above observations and the order dated 30.5.1986 (Annexure "2" to the petition) is set aside.