JUDGMENT : By the writ petitions, a challenge has been made to second proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The connected appeals challenge the order passed by the Commissioner or the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 2. After arguing the case to some length, validity of second proviso to Section 35F of the Act of 1944 is not pressed in view of the fact that the Court has considered alternative prayer to make condition of pre-deposit to be reasonable thus to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT. The application for exemption from the condition of pre-deposit has been decided vide impugned orders. The assessee has been asked to deposit upto 50% of the amount of duty as pre-deposit for hearing of appeal though, in few cases, it is on lower side. As per the amendment by the Finance Act, 2014 the pre-deposit is kept limited to 7.5% or 10%, as the case may be, of the demand to maintain an appeal. 3. We have accordingly considered the alternative prayer. The condition of pre-deposit to maintain an appeal was existing prior to amendment also, however, with a provision to seek exemption by maintaining an application by the assessee. The Commissioner/CESTAT, while accepting the application/s in part, directed the assessee to deposit the amount of duty at a higher rate than provided under the Finance Act, 2014. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessees submit that in few cases, this court has passed interim order directing the assessee to pay 7.5% or 10% of the amount of duty or the penalty, as the case may be, and on its payment, a direction is given for hearing of appeal. The prayer is made to decide these appeals/writ petitions with the same directions as are given in the cases of "M/s. Jain Poles Industries & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. on 2-3-2016 in DB Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2432/2016 [2016 (336) E.L.T. 649 (Raj.)], "Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited v. Union of India & Ors.", DB Central Excise Appeal No. 1/2015, vide order dated 8-4-2015 and "M/s. Prosafe International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.", DB Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 10740/2014, vide order dated 30-10-2014 [2015 (316) E.L.T. 34 (Raj.)]. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. RD Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has supported second proviso to Section 35F of the Act of 1944, however, challenge to the amended provision is not pressed by the petitioners/appellants. 6. Mr. Ajay Shukla, Mr. Vinay Mathur and Mr. Sarvesh Jain, learned counsel for the revenue have supported the orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT on the applications submitted by the assessee to exempt the condition of pre-deposit of the amount of duty or the penalty, as the case may be. It is submitted that the Commissioner/CESTAT have granted exemption of pre-deposit to the extent it was found reasonable. In view of above, this court may not interfere in those orders, rather, it may be made clear that hearing of the appeal would be on pre-deposit of the amount directed by the Commissioner/CESTAT. 7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 8. So far as challenge to second proviso to Section 35F of the Act of 1944 is concerned, it is not pressed. It is in the light of the fact that this court has considered the challenge to the orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT on the applications for exemption from pre-deposit. In view of above, so far as challenge to second proviso to Section 35F of the Act of 1944 is concerned, it is not accepted. 9. The issue now remains regarding orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT on the applications submitted by the assessee to seek exemption from the condition of pre-deposit. The Commissioner/CESTAT have passed orders to exempt condition of pre-deposit to some extent. In few cases, it has been directed to deposit upto 25% of the amount of duty and, in some other cases, to the extent of 50% of the demand. 10. Taking into consideration the legislative intent in making amendment in the year 2014, we find that due to the condition of pre-deposit and discretion given to the Commissioner/CESTAT to grant exemption, the hearing of the appeals has been delayed. To overcome with that difficulty, amendment was brought through the Finance Act, 2014. The condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% of the amount of duty without any provision for exemption has been provided. It is to avoid any litigation on the issue of pre-deposit so that hearing of the appeals can be expedited. To overcome with that difficulty, amendment was brought through the Finance Act, 2014. The condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% of the amount of duty without any provision for exemption has been provided. It is to avoid any litigation on the issue of pre-deposit so that hearing of the appeals can be expedited. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and the orders passed by this Court in the cases referred above, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the Commissioner/CESTAT need interference. Thus, taking into consideration the facts available on record, we are of the opinion that on deposit of 15% of the amount of duty or the penalty, as the case may be, appeals would be heard by the Commissioner/CESTAT. The amount of 15% of the duty or the penalty, as the case may be, would be deposited within a period of one month from today. With the aforesaid directions, all the appeals/writ petitions stand disposed of and, accordingly, impugned orders passed by the Tribunal would stand modified to the extent of the directions given above. 11. It is informed that due to non-compliance of the order on the application for pre-deposit, certain appeals were dismissed. It is agreed by the parties that if the amount directed by this Court is deposited by the assessee, the appeals would be restored. In view of above, it is made clear that if any of the appeal of the appellants/petitioners has been dismissed on their failure to deposit the amount as per order of the Commissioner/CESTAT, it will stand restored on deposition of the amount of 15% of the duty or the penalty, as the case may be, within a period of one month from today. 12. It is further made clear that if any of the assessees has already deposited the amount greater than what has been directed by this Court, the appeal would be heard without being guided by the directions given above, rather, would be treated to be in satisfaction of the condition of pre-deposit. 13. A copy of this judgment be placed in each connected file. Petition disposed of.