JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court vested in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to assail the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in Excise stay No. 2704/2010 in Excise appeal No. 2652/2010 whereby the petitioners have been ordered to make a deposit of 15% of the duty demanded within six weeks and the rest of the duty has been waived off for the purposes of admission of appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record; it would be appropriate to first set out the provisions of Section 35-F of Central Excise Act, 1944 which deals with the pre deposit. Section 35-F reads thus: "35-F. Deposit, pending appeal 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 filling". 3. From a bare reading of Section 35-F, it is evident that where an appeal is directed against any duty demanded or penalty levied, the same would be entertained only if a person, desirous of appealing, deposits with the adjudicating authority the whole of the duty demanded or penalty levied. 3. From a bare reading of Section 35-F, it is evident that where an appeal is directed against any duty demanded or penalty levied, the same would be entertained only if a person, desirous of appealing, deposits with the adjudicating authority the whole of the duty demanded or penalty levied. Under proviso to Section 35-F, a discretion has been given to the Appellate Tribunal to waive off the pre-deposit wholly or partly, if it is of the opinion that the deposit of the duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person. It is in terms of the aforesaid proviso, the petitioners filed an application before the Appellate Tribunal seeking waiver of the pre-de-posit. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the petitioners herein and also the Revenue, found the petitioners entitled to waiver of pre-deposit to the extent of 85 percent of the duty demanded and directed the petitioners to make a deposit of 15% only. The petitioners appear to be unhappy even with the direction of the Tribunal asking them to deposit 15% of the duty demanded and, are therefore, before this Court in these proceedings. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition, are that petitioner No. 1 is a manufacturer of menthol products. The main raw materials for the manufacture of menthol and other allied products are crude mentha oil, crude mentha oil shivalik, crude thymol oil etc. The petitioners claimed exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE, dated 14th November, 2002 as a unit situated in Jammu. As per the terms of the aforesaid Notification, whatever excise duty is paid by the petitioners through PLA is refundable and the buyer of the product is entitled to take Cenvat credit of the duly paid by him to the petitioners. Thus, the payments made through PLA by the units like the petitioners located in Jammu are refunded twice i.e. once to the Unit in Jammu by cash and then to the unit purchasing product by way of credit. This is a scheme devised to encourage industrialization in Jammu and such refunds of the same amount twice is authored by the scheme so long as the goods are genuinely manufactured in Jammu. But the case was projected by the revenue on the ground that such refunds were taken by the petitioners in respect of goods not actually manufactured in Jammu. But the case was projected by the revenue on the ground that such refunds were taken by the petitioners in respect of goods not actually manufactured in Jammu. The petitioners were put on show cause notice which appears to have been replied by the petitioners. 5. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I by an order 17.05.2010 upheld aforesaid notices and returned findings that the petitioner-industry was not engaged itself in any manufacturing process, but was supplying only-crude oil used ultimately for the manufacture of buyer's product. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the impugned order to the extent it directs deposit of 15% of the duty demanded which aggregates in crores, is harsh and confiscatory in nature. It is submitted that having regard to the circumstances, the material on record and the prima facie case in the appeal pending before the Tribunal, it was a fit case for showing indulgence by the Tribunal and ordering total waiver of the pre-deposit. The petitioners, however, have not pleaded any case of undue hardship except that they may have to shell out a considerable amount of money for making predeposit as ordered by the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the material on record. The order passed by the Tribunal on the question of pre-deposit is not only interlocutory, but a discretionary one. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the material available on record, has, in fact, shown indulgence in favour of the petitioners by directing it to deposit only 15% of the duty demanded and waiving off 85% of the demand. The petitioners should have felt satisfied and pursued their appeal after making the aforesaid pre-deposit. The petitioners have failed to make out a case of undue hardship which would be caused to them if they are directed to deposit only 15% of the duty demanded. The order being discretionary and passed at the interlocutory stage of the appeal is not liable to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction, particularly when same does not suffer from any perversity. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 603 is totally misplaced. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 603 is totally misplaced. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court only reiterated the settle principle of law that availability of alternative remedy is not always a ground to refuse entertaining of the writ petition and that there could be certain exceptions where the Court would interfere in the writ jurisdiction even if the alternative remedy is available to a person concerned. 8. Be that as it may, the order impugned is perfectly valid, based on material and inconsonance with the provisions of Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, does not call for any interference. The present writ petition is found to be without merit and is therefore, dismissed.