Pre-deposit and BIFR protection: registration alone does not bar excise recovery or justify interference with dismissal for non-prosecution.

Pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act may be directed after assessing prima facie case and financial hardship, and a later request for modification will not succeed without new circumstances. Registration with BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not automatically bar recovery or pre-deposit, and protection under Section 22(1) applies only where the demand is shown to fall within its scope. A belated challenge to a subsequent Tribunal order, including dismissal for non-prosecution, will not warrant interference absent demonstrated infirmity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution notwithstanding the petitioner's registration with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The order directing deposit was passed after considering the petitioner's prima facie case and financial hardship, and the subsequent request for modification disclosed no new circumstance warranting interference. Registration with BIFR did not, by itself, bar the demand or the pre-deposit direction in absolute terms, and the protection under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was not shown to cover the demand in question. The Court also found that the challenge to the Tribunal's later order was belated and that no infirmity was shown in the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was upheld and the petitioner's challenge failed.

---