1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1282 OF 2009 M/s Relief Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. M.R. Baya for the Petitioners. Mr. A.S. Rao with Mr. Rajender Kumar for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 22ND JULY 2009 P.C. : 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioners is that in Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad – 2008 (223) E.L.T. 663 (Tri.-Mumbai), on similar set of facts against pre-deposit of duty of Rs.58,68,318/-, the Tribunal was pleased to reduce the amount of pre- deposit to Rs.15,00,000/-. 3. It is submitted that the petitioners have already deposited Rs.5,00,000/- 2 with the Commissioner of Appeals and in these circumstances the petitioners may be put to same terms. 4. In our opinion, once the appeal is admitted, the same would disclose that the Tribunal itself has come to a conclusion that there was a prima facie case. The record shows that there was loss in the year 2004-2005 but profit in the next two years, i.e. 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Therefore, the plea of financial hardship really is not supported by the material on record. In Johnson & Johnson (supra), the Tribunal had reduced the amount of duty demanded to about 25% and had waived the deposit of the entire amount of penalty. In our opinion, the petitioners can be put to same terms. In the instant case, the petitioners have already deposited Rs.5,00,000/- before the Commissioner of Appeals. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is partly modified and the petitioners are called upon to deposit further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within 8 weeks from today. On such deposit, the appeal be heard on merits. On failure to deposit, the appeal to stand dismissed. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)