WP(C) 4999/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner challenges the interim order dated 26.7.2010 in Stay Petition No. 367/2009 in S.T. Appeal No. 117/2009, whereby the Customs, Excise and Service T ax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) has directed the writ petitioner/appellant(s) to deposit Rs.75,0 00,00/- (Rupees seventy-five lakhs only) and on making the said deposit, interim order staying recovery of balance tax and interest has been passed by the learn ed Tribunal. Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tri bunal failed to take into account the financial hardship of the applicant while insisting on the above pre-deposit while passing the stay order. The counsel ref ers to the following pleadings of the appellant before the Tribunal in their sta y application, wherein in paragraph-S, the following averments were made:- S. The applicants submit that due to general recessionary trends and credit cru nch the Applicants’ financial position is not very sound. There is tremendous pr essure on cash generation and recovery. Such a huge amount of demand on the appe llants and its payment thereof would cause sever financial strain and financial hardship. The Applicants crave leave to refer to an rely upon the balance sheets when produced. The Applicants submit that in the interest of justice, prima fac ie case, balance of convenience and public interest factor require that pending the hearing and final disposal of Appeal unconditional stay be granted by this T ribunal. By referring to the above pleadings, Mr. Sahewalla contends that the recording m ade by the learned Tribunal that no financial hardship has been pleaded by the a ppellant, is a perverse finding and on that basis the learned counsel submits th at the Tribunal be directed to reconsider the conditions for the interim matter, by referring to the pleadings made by the appellant in their stay application. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, Central Excise Department submits that pro of of financial hardship was not furnished by the appellant and that is how inte rim stay was ordered by directing the appellant to make a deposit of Rs.75,00,00 0/- on or before 30.9.2010. Having regard to the quoted averments of the appellant in paragraph-S of the sta y application as extracted hereinabove, it is apparent that the appellant had pl eaded about their financial difficulties and therefore, I am of the considered o pinion that the learned Tribunal was in error in recording that the appellant ha d not pleaded financial hardship in pressing their stay application. But Conside ring the fact that the petitioner’s appeal is being considered on merit by the T ribunal, I see no reason to keep the present writ petition pending before this C ourt. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal is directed to reconsider the condition for th e quantum of deposit for granting the stay prayer of the appellant, by giving du e reconsideration of the pleadings made by the appellant. After such reconsidera tion, appropriate order may thereafter be passed on the amount required to be pr e-deposited by the appellant, under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.