JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 17-8-2005 passed on the application under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") the Act, by which Tribunal has directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore within eight weeks as pre-deposit.
2. Heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia and Shri Amit Awasthi, learned Counsels for the petitioners and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. With the consent of both the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner are engaged in the proc essing of grey fabrics. The officers of Revenue department visited the premises of the petitioners on 18-11-1998 and certain private records were seized. It is alleged that some unaccounted grey fabrics and semi-processed finished fabrics were recovered from the premises. On the basis of material found at the time of search, it has been inferred that the petitioners were indulged in removing the manufactured goods without payment of duty and accordingly, demand has been raised and the penalty have been imposed. Against the order of adjudicating authority, petitioners filed appeal before the Tribunal along with application under Section 35F of the Act for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of the demand till the disposal of the appeal. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that the demand is wholly unjustified. It was further pleaded that the statement of the employees were recorded under coercion and there is no evidence that they have cleared any goods without payment of duty. It was also pleaded that under the Notification 29/96, dated 3-9-1996 petitioner are also entitled for the benefit of deemed Modvat credit. Copies of balance sheet as on 31-3-2004 and 31-3-2005 were filed to show that they suffered losses and their financial condition was not such to deposit the huge amount. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application in part and directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 1 crore within a period of eight weeks. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deposit of Rs. 1 crore will hamper the entire business of the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioners have suffered losses in the previous years and is running in a great financial crises. He also submitted that the demand raised in not justified.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners and the facts and circumstances of the case in my view order of Tribunal requires modification and it would be more appropriate and reasonable to substitute the amount by Rs. 20 lakhs. Petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs within a period of six weeks from today. On the deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs, Tribunal may consider the appeal and may dispose of the appeal expeditiously as early as possible.
6. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is disposed of.