Mandatory pre-deposit for excise appeals bars writ bypass where financial inconvenience alone cannot defeat the statutory remedy.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable to bypass the statutory appellate remedy against a service tax demand because Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 required a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining the appeal. The court noted that the post-2015 regime replaced the earlier undue hardship waiver mechanism with a fixed deposit requirement intended to reduce avoidable stay litigation. Financial inconvenience alone was insufficient to justify writ interference, especially where the petitioner was a statutory board with means to raise funds, maintain accounts, and seek government assistance. The writ challenge was therefore rejected and the alternative appeal route was left intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained to bypass the statutory appeal remedy on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was onerous and financially difficult for a statutory board.

Analysis: The petitioners challenged the service tax demand and contended that the appeal remedy was illusory because entertainment of the appeal was conditioned on deposit of 7.5% of the duty demanded or penalty imposed. The Court held that Section 35-F, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2015, expressly mandates pre-deposit before an appeal can be entertained under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The earlier regime permitting waiver on grounds of undue hardship had been replaced by a fixed statutory requirement intended to curtail avoidable stay litigation. The Court further held that the petitioner-board could not establish such financial incapacity as would justify writ interference, particularly when the board was a statutory body with power to generate funds, submit accounts, and seek governmental assistance where necessary.

Conclusion: The challenge to the statutory pre-deposit condition was rejected and the writ petition was not entertained in view of the alternative efficacious appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appeal route remained available, and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction to neutralise the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent to entertainment of an appeal, the existence of financial inconvenience to the appellant does not by itself justify writ interference when an alternative efficacious appellate remedy is available.

---