1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7954 OF 2009 M/s. Jai Prakash Strips Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Ashok Singh for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Jetly with MR. J.B. Mishra for the respondents. CORAM:- F.I. REBELLO AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, JJ. DATED:- October 07, 2009. P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. In the instant case, the Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances was of the view that a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- of penalty ought to be deposited against the penalty of Rs. 35,00,000/- as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3. In the instant case, the Petitioner has deposited the entire amount. There was a delay in payment of the duty amount ranging between 70 days and 100 days. The Petitioner has also paid the interest for the said period. The 2 question, therefore, in these circumstances is what would be the quantum of penalty that could be imposed under Rule 96(3). Considering the Rule and the facts and circumstances of the case and as Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in financial hardship and can manage only to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/-, we vary the order of the Tribunal. Instead of Rs. 6,00,000/-, the Petitioner would deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today. 4. As the Petitioner had failed to deposit the amount, the Appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the light of the order passed today, the order dismissing the appeal stands set aside; on deposit, as ordered. The Appeal to be heard on merits. On failure to deposit, the order stands confirmed. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. F.I. REBELLO, J A.M.KHANWILKAR, J