R.K.Gulati, J. - (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The only relief sought in this writ petition is that a writ or order in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to press for the recovery of demand which is disputed in the appeal pending before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi till the petitioner's application under the proviso to Section 35F is not decided by the appellate authority.
(2.) It appears that being aggrieved by the notice/order dated 30th November, 1989 the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the act) before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accompanied by an application under the proviso to the said section for dis pensing with the condition of pre-deposit of dues as required under Section 35F aforesaid. The proviso reads as under: "Provided that where in any particular case, the Collector (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of any duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Collector (Appeals) or, as the case may be, appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such condition as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of Revenue."
(3.) The application dated 27th February, 1990, under the above proviso, it is stated was filed on 28th February, 1990 before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi on which no order has been passed and the application is still pending decision. It is further asserted that pending disposal of the said application the respondents have threatened the petitioner to recover the dues disputed in the appeal by taking recourse to the coercive measures including the recourse to Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is in this background that the petitioner has sought the relief mentioned above.;