Pre-deposit orders under excise law will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent a strong basis to interfere.

A writ court will not interfere with a Tribunal's discretionary pre-deposit order under Section 35F where the Tribunal has considered the submissions, relevant case law, and materials indicating clandestine manufacture and removal. The Tribunal's prima facie assessment of duty liability was supported by evidence such as electricity consumption, movement of raw material, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for excessive power use. In these circumstances, the court declined to reappraise the evidence or disturb the pre-deposit direction, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The order requiring deposit of one-third of the duty, interest, and penalty was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 called for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the parties' submissions, the relevant case law on pre-deposit, and the materials relied upon for alleging clandestine manufacture and removal. The order reflected a prima facie assessment of duty liability based on evidence such as consumption of electricity, movement of raw material, and absence of a satisfactory explanation for the excessive power consumption. In these circumstances, the writ court found no basis to reappraise the Tribunal's discretionary view or to interfere with the pre-deposit direction.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the Tribunal's order directing deposit of one-third of the duty, interest, and penalty. The writ petitions were dismissed.

---