JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Ajitsaria, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr. R. Sarmah, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. All the writ petitions relate to deposit of duty/penalty levied against the Petitioners. According to the Petitioners, they are entitled to dispensation from such deposit and the appellate authorities have passed the impugned orders illegally. 3. While in the first writ petition, the Petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise against the adjudication order dated 27.9.2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, in the remaining 3 (three) writ petitions, the Petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") against the adjudication order dated 31.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. Be it stated here that while the Petitioner in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th writ petition is one and the same, the Petitioner in the 1st writ petition is a separate party. For convenience sake, all the writ petitions have been heard together as the issue involved is the same. 4. The only issue involved in all the writ petitions is as to whether the respective appellate authorities have acted beyond its jurisdiction in exercising its particular discretion under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For a ready reference, Section 35F of the Act is quoted below: 35F. Deposit, pending appeals of duty demanded or penalty levied.-Where in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or 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 decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied: Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal, may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue. Provided further that where an application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing. W.P. (C) No. 4832 of 2007 5. In this writ petition, the Petitioner was issued with the show cause notice vide Annexure-'A' dated 10.4.1986 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why. (1) the amount of duties of Rs. 16,00,003.00 and education cess of Rs. 32,017.00 during the period from 1.4.2005 to 5.9.2005 totalling Rs. 16,32,020.00 should not be recovered from them under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with the interest at the applicable rate as envisaged in Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; (2) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for non-payment of duty of excise by reason of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty; (3) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of the Rules above with intent to evade payment of duty. 6. After the aforesaid show cause notice, the Petitioner submitted its reply, as stated in Para-6 of the writ petition. However, copy of the same has not been annexed. By Annexure-'B' order dated 27.9.2006, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of Central Excise duties of Rs. 16,00,003.00 and education cess of Rs. 31,017.00 under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with the interest at the applicable rate as envisaged in Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. The duty is in respect of the goods cleared during the period from 1.4.2005 to 5.9.2005. Further, a penalty of Rs. 16,32,020.00 was also imposed under Section11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 7. By the aforesaid order, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise also directed for appropriation of the amount of Central Excise duties of Rs. 6,36,972.00 and education cess of Rs. 12,739.00 deposited by the Petitioner vide TR 6 Challan No. 003 dated 5.12.2005 from the amount confirmed by the order. 8. 7. By the aforesaid order, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise also directed for appropriation of the amount of Central Excise duties of Rs. 6,36,972.00 and education cess of Rs. 12,739.00 deposited by the Petitioner vide TR 6 Challan No. 003 dated 5.12.2005 from the amount confirmed by the order. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise. Although copy of the appeal memo has not been annexed to the writ petition, but the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has produced the same during the course of hearing. Various grounds have been urged in the appeal. Along with the appeal, the Petitioner also filed an application for dispensation of the requirement of deposits towards filing the appeal. As regards its financial condition, the Petitioner craving leave of the appellate authority to produce and refer the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts at the time of hearing of the same, stated about bad financial condition of the Petitioner. 9. The appellate authority by its impugned order dated 6.8.2007 has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for dispensing with deposit of duty and penalty. The order has been passed upon hearing the representative of the Petitioner. The order reveals that the said representative upon a reference to the case laws submitted that in view of deposit of Rs. 6,36,972.00, the Petitioner is not required to make any further deposit and that the appeal be decided without any further pre-deposit. 10. The appellate authority upon consideration of the materials on record has held that the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner are all pertaining to final adjudication of the matter. Although Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority has not discussed anything regarding prima facie case of the Petitioner, but from the impugned order, I find that the appellate authority was, prima facie, satisfied that the Petitioner failed to make out any strong case for waiving full pre-deposit. As regards the leave sought for by the Petitioner to produce the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts, there is nothing to show that in fact, the same were produced by the Petitioner to show its bad financial condition. 11. As regards the leave sought for by the Petitioner to produce the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts, there is nothing to show that in fact, the same were produced by the Petitioner to show its bad financial condition. 11. Even otherwise also, the deposit on duty and penalty towards entertaining of the appeal and waiver thereof either in part or full being an exception upon arriving at satisfaction, I am of the considered opinion that the particular discretion applied by the appellate authority, in absence of any allegation, of mala fide and colorable exercise of power, cannot be interfered with. No statutory provisions could be shown to have been violated by the appellate authority in rejecting the prayer for dispensing with the pre-deposit. The particular discretion applied by the appellate authority in terms of Section 35F of the Act cannot be said to be an act of arbitrary exercise of power. The pre-deposit being a rule and its dispensation being an exception, the prayer of the Petitioner for dispensation of the pre-deposit will have to be considered in the touch-stone of die said test. Considering the matter in its entirety and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made for interference with the impugned order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise. Consequently, the writ petition merits dismissal which I accordingly do Writ petition is dismissed. W.P. (C) No. 4833/07 W.P. (C) No. 4834/07 W.P. (C) No. 4835/07 12. In this batch of writ petitions, the Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the Tribunal in the appeals preferred by the Petitioner against the order passed on 31.10.2001 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong By the said order dated 31.10.2001, the Commissioner ofCentra1 Excise confirming the demand in 3 separate proceedings passed the following orders: (In W.P. (C) No. 4833/2007) ORDER On going by the above facts and findings, I confirm the demand of Rs. 2,41,45,194.00 (Rupees two crores forty one lakhs forty five thousand one hundred ninety four) only on M/s. Sudarshan Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Margherita, Assam (Now M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd., Margherita) in terms of provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 2,41,45,194.00 (Rupees two crores forty one lakhs forty five thousand one hundred ninety four) only on M/s. Sudarshan Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Margherita, Assam (Now M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd., Margherita) in terms of provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakhs) only in terms of provisions of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I further impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs) on Shri S.L. Goenka, and Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh) on Shri A.K. Goenka in terms of the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (In W.P. (C) No. 4834/2007) ORDER On going by the above facts and findings, I confirm the demand of Rs. 41,35,714.07 (Rupees forty one lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred fourteen and paise seven) only on M/s. Himalayan Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tinsukia, Assam (Now M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia) in terms of provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 19441 also impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lakhs) only in terms of provisions of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I further impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh) on Shri S.L. Goenka, in terms of the provisions of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (In W.P. (C) No. 4835/2007) ORDER On going by the above facts and findings, I confirm the demand of Rs. 2,51,58,639.30 (Rupees two crores fifty one lakhs fifty eight thousand six hundred thirty nine and paise thirty) only on M/s. Himalayan Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd., Tinsukia, Assam (Now M/s. Kitply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia) in terms of provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. I also impose a penalty of Rs 20,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty lakhs) only in terms of provisions of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Petitioner has preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its orders dated 24.7.2007 expressed its inability to fully stay realization of demand for which the Petitioner made the prayer. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed payment of 25% of the duty demand. 13. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Petitioner has preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its orders dated 24.7.2007 expressed its inability to fully stay realization of demand for which the Petitioner made the prayer. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed payment of 25% of the duty demand. According to the Petitioner, considering the prima facie case and the financial hardship of the Petitioner, it is a fit case for full waiver of the deposit. 14. As in the first writ petition, in this batch of writ petitions also, the Petitioner has not chosen to annex the copy of the appeal memo not the copy of the stay petition filed before the Tribunal. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mrs. M. Hazarika has produced the same at the time of hearing. Going through the same, I do not find any whisper even regarding financial incapacity of the Petitioner towards making the deposit of 25% of the demand duty. 15. The Tribunal has rightly recorded that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prima facie case or any financial hardship for stay of realization of entire demand during the pendency of the appeal. Although it is submitted by Mrs. Hazarika, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner that there is a prima facie case in favour of the Petitioner and the Tribunal failed to consider the same, but from the impugned order what has transpired is that the Tribunal was not oblivious of the same. It has duly considered the relevant aspects of the matter. Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant/writ Petitioner, the Tribunal found that the requirements of dispensation of full deposit of duty towards entertaining the appeal are not present in the case. Consequently, instead of staying the full realization, the direction issued is for deposit of the 25% of the duty demand which in my considered view, cannot be said to be an exercise of discretion, contrary to law. The reasons assigned towards dismissing the first writ petition are equally applicable to this batch of writ petitions. 16. This case has a long chequered history. The Petitioner has been successfully avoiding the demand by initiating the writ proceeding, one after Anr.. Now, with the liberty granted by this Court in Misc. The reasons assigned towards dismissing the first writ petition are equally applicable to this batch of writ petitions. 16. This case has a long chequered history. The Petitioner has been successfully avoiding the demand by initiating the writ proceeding, one after Anr.. Now, with the liberty granted by this Court in Misc. Case No. 1264/2006 filed in W.P. (C) No. 8471/2001, the Petitioner although has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, has once again approached this Court for stay of even 25% of the demand towards entertaining the appeal. Be that as it may, since I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, this batch of writ petitions also merits dismissal, which I accordingly do. 17. All the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.