Prima facie findings on pre-deposit relief will not be disturbed at admission without factual reappreciation.

An appellate court should not interfere at the admission stage with a Tribunal order dispensing with pre-deposit where the Tribunal has taken only a prima facie view that no case for confiscation is made out. The Tribunal relied on the absence of material implicating the appellant and the absence of any culpatory statement against him. Interference would have required reappreciation of facts and substitution of a different prima facie view, which was not warranted. The challenge to the Tribunal's order was therefore rejected and the appeal was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere at the admission stage with the Tribunal's order dispensing with pre-deposit on a prima facie finding that no case for confiscation was made out.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded a prima facie view that there was no material to implicate the appellant and that no culpatory statement had been recorded against him. Interference at the stage of admission would require the court to reappreciate facts and take a different prima facie view, which was not warranted.

Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained and the challenge to the Tribunal's order was rejected.

---