D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Murlidhar, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Shishir kumar, the learned counsel representing the respondents. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the interlocutory order dated 3rd October, 1991 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in exercise of its powers under proviso to Section 35f of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the Act. The relevant facts are these : ( 3 ) A show cause notice-cum-demand dated 21st August, 1990 was issued to the petitioner under rule 196 of the Central Excise Ruies, 1944 demanding a duty of excise amounting to Rs. 32,52,555. 91 in respect of fuel oil received by it. The petitioner submitted its reply on 1st october, 1990. ( 4 ) BY means of the order dated 21 st January, 1991 the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, confirmed the demand of duty of excise and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Rule 173q of the said Rules. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Collector the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 35b of the Act before the Tribunal. The said appeal is pending decision. ( 6 ) ALONGWITH the appeal, the petitioner also moved an application for dispensation of the condition of pre-deposit of the duty of excise demanded as contemplated by proviso to Section 35f of the Act. The prayer of the petitioner has been allowed in part in as much as it has been called upon to make a deposit of rupees sixteen lacs and the condition of predeposit for the balance of the amount of duty of excise and the penalty has been dispensed with by means of the order dated 3rd October, 1991, impugned herein. The petitioner is not satisfied with the partial dispensation of the condition of predeposit of the duty of excise. Hence this petition. ( 7 ) THE contention before the Tribunal as well as before us raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the fuel oil in respect of which the duty of excise is demanded was used by the petitioner in the manufacture of fertilizer and as such the duty payable thereon was to be computed at concessional rate. ( 7 ) THE contention before the Tribunal as well as before us raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the fuel oil in respect of which the duty of excise is demanded was used by the petitioner in the manufacture of fertilizer and as such the duty payable thereon was to be computed at concessional rate. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal opined that the question as to whether fuel oil was/is used in the manufacture of fertilizer required lengthy examination of the scope of the relevant notification in the context of the words used and that could be done while considering the appeal of the petitioner on merits. The Court is of the opinion that no umbrage can be taken to the opinion expressed by the tribunal. ( 9 ) IT cannot be disputed that for the purposes of considering the question of exemption of the condition of predeposit of the duty of excise the Tribunal was called upon to consider the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and the financial hardship. On the question of prima facie case, the Tribunal has concluded that the fuel oil was, admittedly, used for power consumption i. e. for the purposes other than the manufacture of fertilizers and as such no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner was made out on merits. On the question of financial hardship the Tribunal has noticed that financial hardship has not been pleaded by the petitioner. Indeed, from the perusal of the impugned order we find that as regards the financial hardship aspect it was pleaded that the petitioner had no difficulty as such. ( 10 ) ON the aforesaid twin findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is difficult to conclude that the impugned order suffers from any error, much less error apparent on the face of the record inviting interference by this Court in exercise of its special and extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the fact that the impugned order does not suffer from any error, we are fully satisfied that it does complete justice to the parties. Otherwise also, the impugned order being interlocutory in nature and founded on relevant considerations should not be disturbed. ( 11 ) FOR what has been said above, we find no merit in the instant petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. Otherwise also, the impugned order being interlocutory in nature and founded on relevant considerations should not be disturbed. ( 11 ) FOR what has been said above, we find no merit in the instant petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order/orders shall stand discharged. .