Pre-deposit compliance under Central Excise law cannot be extended by insisting on further deposit when sufficient amount is already paid.

A deposit already made by the appellant was treated as sufficient compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so no further deposit could be insisted upon. The dismissal of the appeal for alleged non-compliance with the stay direction was therefore not sustainable. The matter was required to be examined on merits without demanding any additional pre-deposit, and the insistence on further deposit was set aside with remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount already deposited by the appellant was sufficient for compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order was justified.

Analysis: The amount already deposited was treated as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F, and there was no justification for insisting on any further deposit. The dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the stay direction, therefore, could not be sustained. The matter was required to be considered on merits without insisting on additional pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The insistence on further pre-deposit was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without requiring any further deposit.

---