BIFR registration does not waive statutory pre-deposit under excise law; sick-company protection under Section 22 remains inapplicable.

BIFR registration under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not by itself exempt an assessee from the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal treated the deposit obligation as independent of sick-company status and held that Section 22 of the 1985 Act did not extend to proceedings concerning pre-deposit. Relying on the Supreme Court's approach, it concluded that BIFR registration was not a sufficient ground to dispense with the ordered deposit. The waiver request was rejected, and unconditional stay was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether registration of the assessee's unit with the Board for Financial and Industrial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 entitled it to waiver of the statutory pre-deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F was independent of the assessee's registration as a sick industrial company. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was found not to cover the deposit obligation arising under Section 35F. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's view that pre-deposit is not a proceeding of the kind protected by Section 22, and therefore BIFR registration did not by itself justify dispensing with the deposit ordered.

Conclusion: The request for waiver of pre-deposit was rejected, and the assessee was not entitled to unconditional stay on the ground of BIFR registration.

---