Pre-deposit under Central Excise law remains unaffected by a proposed recovery mechanism in a Finance Bill.

The proposed recovery mechanism in a Finance Bill did not affect the Tribunal's power to insist on a pre-deposit under the Central Excise Act. Because the Bill had not yet become law, it could not justify modification of an existing stay order or displace the pre-deposit direction in the pending matter. The Tribunal also noted that the direction did not require payment of the full duty demand. The modification request was rejected, while the time for compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was extended.

---

---

Issues: Whether the modification of the stay order directing pre-deposit was warranted on the ground that the Finance Bill proposed a recovery mechanism for wrongly availed credit.

Analysis: The stay order had been passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The proposed recovery mechanism in the Finance Bill was held to have no bearing on the Tribunal's power to direct a pre-deposit in the pending matter. The fact that the Bill had not yet become law and that a different recovery procedure might later be available did not justify altering the pre-deposit direction, especially as the Tribunal had not directed payment of the entire duty demand.

Conclusion: The modification application was rejected, and the time for compliance with the pre-deposit direction was extended.

---