Pre-deposit discretion in fiscal proceedings upheld; continued interim protection may be conditioned to safeguard revenue.

A pre-deposit order in fiscal proceedings will not be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction where the authority has considered the relevant material and exercised discretion reasonably. Here, the Tribunal's direction to deposit only a substantial part of the excise duty and penalty, after assessing the balance-sheet and liquidity position, was upheld. Further extension of time for compliance may be granted only on terms that protect revenue; continued interim protection was made conditional on payment of interest for the period of delay, with that amount treated as non-refundable and not adjustable against the duty liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of part of the excise duty and penalty called for interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether time for compliance with the pre-deposit direction could be extended by continuing the ad interim relief on conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of part of the excise duty and penalty called for interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Tribunal had considered the material on record, including the balance-sheet and the petitioner's liquidity position, and had relieved the petitioner from a substantial part of the deposit obligation. The direction required only about 40% of the total amount to be deposited and therefore reflected application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances. In supervisory jurisdiction, no interference was warranted with such an exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's pre-deposit order failed and the order was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether time for compliance with the pre-deposit direction could be extended by continuing the ad interim relief on conditions.

Analysis: A further extension of time was considered inappropriate without protection to the revenue, particularly in a fiscal matter where delay in payment would confer an unfair monetary advantage on the petitioner. The relief was therefore made conditional upon payment of interest for the period of continued protection, and the amount so paid was made non-refundable and not adjustable against the duty liability.

Conclusion: Limited continuation of interim protection was granted only on payment of interest as directed, failing which the protection would stand vacated.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, while the ad interim relief was allowed to continue only for a limited period and subject to the imposed monetary condition.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit order in fiscal proceedings will not be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction where the authority has applied its mind to the relevant material and has exercised discretion reasonably, and any further extension of interim protection may be conditioned to safeguard the revenue.

---