JUDGMENT M.M. Lal, J. - In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the interim stay order passed by the Appellate Tribunal u/s 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 2. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 28.8.1989 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, by which he had confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,65,705.65 p. besides a penalty of Rs. 5000/-, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal u/s 35B of the aforesaid Act. In this appeal, the petitioner filed an application for interim stay. The appellate Tribunal considering the equities for and against the petitioner, granted waiver of the deposit of the aforesaid amount subject to appellants' depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash within 8 weeks of the date of receipt. The petitioner not feeling satisfied with the said order has filed this writ petition. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and have perused the material on the record. 4. Section 35F of the aforesaid Act lays down that where in any appeal the order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of Central Excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such order has to deposit, during the pendency of such appeal, the duty demanded or penalty levied. Thus, the normal procedure and course is that the appellants in such cases have to deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded and the penalty levied. 5. However, proviso attached to this section lays down that in case the Appellate Tribunal finds that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to the appellant, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of revenue. 6. In this case the petitioners have submitted before the appellate tribunal that deposit of the duty demanded and the penalty levied would cause undue hardship to them, hence the condition of making the deposit may be dispensed with. 6. In this case the petitioners have submitted before the appellate tribunal that deposit of the duty demanded and the penalty levied would cause undue hardship to them, hence the condition of making the deposit may be dispensed with. The appellate tribunal in this case considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants as well as the submissions made on behalf of the revenue department, and passed the impugned order and permitted the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,0001- only as against the sum of Rs. 2,65,705.65 p. The appellate tribunal has considered the arguments for and on behalf of the petitioners and the revenue department in detail and has then passed the impugned order. We do not find any illegality in the said order. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the impugned order was not a speaking order. We find no merit in the same. As already observed the appellate tribunal has passed a detailed order and has considered the various arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the department. 8. In the result and for the reasons stated we find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with an observation that in case the petitioners move an application before the Tribunal for extension of time for making the aforesaid deposit of Rs. 1,00,0001-, the Tribunal may entertain the said application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Copy of this order may be issued to the-learned Counsel for the appellants on payment of usual charges by tomorrow.