JUDGMENT
A.K. Banerji, J.
1. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against an order of the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad demanding duty amounting to Rs. 14,38,871.00 and penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- respectively. Before the Tribunal, an application for stay and waiver was filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. Seven Lakh within two months. This order was challenged before this Court by means of a writ petition. On 2.11.1995, this Court refused to interfere with the said order but observed that if necessary, the petitioner can move the Tribunal by filing an application for furnishing security in place of cash deposit and the said application if filed shall be considered by the Tribunal before passing final orders. It appears that such an application was filed and thereafter, the petitioner obtained permission and deposited Rupees Two lacs and prayed for furnishing Bank Guarantee for the balance. By an order dated 1.3.1996, the Tribunal rejecting the said prayer and ordered the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. Five lacs within six weeks. It is this order which has been impugned in this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the record of this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that he has a very good prima facie case in his favour as the duty demanded against the petitioner is time barred. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider all the submissions made before it on merits as well as the undue hardship suffered by the petitioner which is doing business in a small scale and will not be able to deposit the amount demanded in cash.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with by this Court. It was for the petitioner to have satisfied the Tribunal regarding the undue hardship for invoking the proviso to Section 35F of the Act. The Tribunal was not satisfied with regard to the same and, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with this order in the writ jurisdiction.
4. However, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the demand is clearly time barred and there appears to be only legal point involved in the appeal, I consider it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to decide the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order before the Tribunal. With these observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
5. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days, if possible.