Judgment :- SATHIADEV, J. This appeal is preferred against the order in W.P. No. 13382 of 1989, which in turn was filed to set aside the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, dated 12-9-1989, in SB/S/Order No. 160/1989. It was an order passed with reference to Section 35F of Central Act I of 1944. The only question that requires to be considered is, whether the condition imposed by the Tribunal to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 3, 65, 000/- would cause undue hardship to the appellant? 2.In considering this aspect, the Tribunal, on the point taken, that with regard to biscuit tin components, a relief is 'prima facie'claimable by the appellant, had waived the demand made in respect of that category and confined the pre-deposit to Rs. 3, 65, 000/- representing the other categories of demands made on the appellant. What is contended by Mr. Ramachandran is that, a misconception had been entertained by the learned Judge that it was not the entire amount of Rs. 6, 91, 000/- odd claimed against the appellant, but only one-half of the amount is claimed; whereas factually what is claimed is 100 per cent of the duty, which is claimed by virtue of the order of the Collector in relation to the concerned categories of demand. 3.As repeatedly held, it is only the aspect of 'undue hardship' that could be gone into at this stage, pertaining to the financial ability of the concerned party to make the pre-deposit, as and when an appeal is preferred to the Tribunal. On this aspect, the turn over of the appellant, which is more than rupees two crores for the year ending 31-3-1988 and the amount of Rs. 28, 00, 000/- recoverable by it as per the balance sheet under the heading "Sundry debtors and other debts", had been taken into account. These are undoubtedly the opposite factors which could be taken into account for the relevant period, and these by themselves would show that the appellant has the financial ability to raise the funds, if it is not possessed of liquid cash to deposit the amount. Therefore, when its financial ability had been taken into account, it cannot besaid that any irrelevant factors had been taken into account or the finding arrived at is perverse. 4.Even then, learned Counsel Mr. Therefore, when its financial ability had been taken into account, it cannot besaid that any irrelevant factors had been taken into account or the finding arrived at is perverse. 4.Even then, learned Counsel Mr. Ramachandran would refer toKelvinator of India Ltd.v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise- 1987 (32) ELT 663 (Del.), but it was a case in which the Delhi High Court took into account the peculiar facts of the case, and held that, when unjust enrichment is made out, the pre-condition need not be imposed under the facts and circumstances of the said case. 5.He would then refer toU.P. Laminationv. Union of India and Others 1985 (20) ELT 243 ]. But here again what was considered was the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court inAssistant Collector of C. E.v. Dunlop India Ltd. 1985 (19) ELT 22 , 1985 AIR(SC) 330, 1985 (58) CC 145, 1985 (1) CCC 622, 1985 ECR 4, 1985 (154) ITR 172, 1984 (2) Scale 819 , 1985 (1) SCC 260 , 1985 (2) SCR 190 , 1985 UJ 368 , 1984 (2) SCALE 819 , 1985 (4) ECC 103, 1985 AIR(SCage) 330, 1985 SCC(Tax) 75 (SC)], and it was held that it had only cautioned the Courts to be discreet in exercising their jurisdiction, but had not taken away the power of the court to grant appropriate interim orders. 6.As forAsha Rubber Industriesv. Collector of Central Excise 1988 (34) ELT 528 ], it had been held that normally it is not the function of the High Court to interfere with a discretionary order passed under Section 35F of the Act, and it could be done only in deserving cases if it be shown that the order of the Tribunal is perverse. Such a situation does not exist in this case. 7.Lastly, he would refer toAshoka Rubber Productsv. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (43) ELT 605 ]. But this decision does not take away the condition of pre-deposit, as upheld by the Supreme Court, in the manner found in Section 35F of the Act. Therefore, when the Tribunal had taken into account the financial ability of the Company and after giving waiver in respect of the demand pertaining to biscuit tins, and having directed the pre-deposit only in respect of the other items, it cannot be treated as a perverse order. 8.Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Time for pre-deposit is extended till 31-12-1989.