Pre-deposit compliance under excise law allows merits-based appeal where substantial duty and full interest were already deposited.

Substantial payment of the duty demand and full payment of interest was treated as sufficient compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority should not dismiss the appeal for alleged non-compliance where nearly 90% of the duty and the entire interest had already been deposited. The dismissal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction when substantial duty and entire interest had already been deposited, and whether the matter should instead be decided on merits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The appellants had deposited nearly 90% of the duty demand and the entire interest, which ought to have been treated as sufficient compliance for the purpose of pre-deposit. In these circumstances, the appellate authority ought to have considered the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for alleged non-compliance with the stay direction.

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

---