OM PRAKASH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition by the petitioner, a Small scale industrial unit, engaged in the business of manufacture of flattened aluminium rods, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order 8th june, 1987 (Annexure 7) passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, new Delhi, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispense with the pre-condition of the deposit under Section 35f of the Central Excises and Salt Act of the amount of duty and penalty. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 2 passed an order raising a demand of Rs. 24,86,658. 74 pertaining to central duty and penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/ -. The petitioner then made an application for waiver to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the respondent No. 1 called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the duty within 8 weeks from that date. ( 3 ) THE counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petition be disposed of finally at, this stage. The matter is such which can be disposed of finally at this stage and, therefore, I proceed to decide the matter finally. ( 4 ) THE short submission of Shri Bharat Ji, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner made an application for waiver before the Tribunal on the ground of being faced stringent financial position, but the Tribunal without considering the financial capacity and without recording any finding on "undue hardship" as envisaged by the proviso to Section 35f, Central excises and Salt Act, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- before deciding the appeal and granting the stay order. The submission is that when the application for waiver was made with over-whelming materials in support of the Act that the petitioner is not in a position to make any deposit. It was the duty of The respondent No. 1 record a clear finding whether the petitioner would have suffered undue hardship, if the waiver application was refused. Also he relied on a decision of this Court in U. P. Laminates v. Union of India [ 1985 (20) ELT 243 All. ], in which it was held that in the absence of any finding of "undue hardship", the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal is patently erroneous. Also he relied on a decision of this Court in U. P. Laminates v. Union of India [ 1985 (20) ELT 243 All. ], in which it was held that in the absence of any finding of "undue hardship", the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal is patently erroneous. Following this authority, I am of the considered view that the Tribunals order (Annexure 7) to the writ petition deserves to be quashed, inasmuch, no precise finding has been recorded thereby on the issue whether the petitioner would have faced undue hardship, had the waiver application been rejected. Before directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,00,0007-, it was the duty of the respondent No, 1 to record a clear finding considering the entire materials on the record whether or not the petitioner was in a position to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The Tribunal having failed in recording a clear finding on undue hardship on the basis of the materials filed by the petitioner, the Tribunals order (Annexure 7) has to be quashed. ( 5 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed, the Tribunals order dated 8th June, 1987 (Annexure 7 to the petition) is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to consider the waiver application of the petitioner afresh considering the entire materials already available on record and the materials to be produced by the petitioner now before the Tribunal. A clear finding will be recorded by the Tribunal in view of the proviso to Section 35f of the Act, 1944, whether or not the petitioner has a financial capacity to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-, more or less and whether the petitioner would face undue hardship within the meaning of the proviso to Section 35f, if the waiver application is refused fully or partially. If the Tribunal is of the view that the financial position of the petitioner has further deteriorated after the date of the order (Annexure 7), then the order on the request of waiver could be passed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. .