Pre-deposit for excise appeal upheld where duty liability was admitted and financial hardship alone was pleaded.

A pre-deposit condition for hearing an excise appeal was sustained where the appellant had admitted the duty liability and sought relief only on financial hardship. The statutory scheme under the appeal-stay provision permitted insistence on compliance before the appeal could be examined on merits, and the earlier non-compliance dismissal was not treated as warranting interference. The operative effect was that the appellant had to comply with the pre-deposit direction first, after which the Commissioner (Appeals) would decide the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to pre-deposit Rs. 5 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was justified when the appellant did not dispute the duty liability.

Analysis: The appellant accepted the confirmed duty liability and sought relief only on the ground of financial difficulty. The amount ordered to be deposited was considered in light of the admitted liability and the statutory scheme for hearing of appeal after compliance with the stay order. The earlier dismissal for non-compliance was therefore not treated as warranting interference; instead, compliance with the pre-deposit direction was required before the appeal could be examined on merits.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit direction was upheld and the appellant was required to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within ten weeks, after which the Commissioner (Appeals) would decide the appeal on merits.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of by requiring compliance with the pre-deposit order, with the substantive appeal left to be decided after such compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the duty liability is admitted, a pre-deposit condition imposed for hearing the appeal under the statutory stay provision will ordinarily be sustained unless shown to be unduly harsh or unsupported by the record.

---