Limited appellate interference on waiver representation where the order only required consideration under the BIFR scheme.

Appellate interference was refused because the single judge had not granted waiver of the amount claimed for non-submission of C forms; the order only set aside the recovery notice and directed consideration of the respondent's representation. The authority was merely required to examine the waiver request in accordance with the BIFR scheme. As no final or positive direction had been issued, there was no basis to disturb the order. Any adverse decision on the representation would remain open to challenge in the manner known to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with the order directing the department to consider the respondent's representation for waiver of the amount claimed for non-submission of C forms and to act in accordance with the BIFR scheme.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the limited scope of interference with the order under challenge. The direction issued by the single judge did not finally grant the waiver claimed by the respondent. It only set aside the recovery notice and permitted the respondent to make a representation seeking waiver of the amount relating to non-submission of C forms. The authority concerned was only required to consider that representation in accordance with the BIFR orders. The appellate court found no positive or final direction warranting interference, and observed that any adverse decision on the representation would be open to challenge in the manner known to law.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted, and the appellate challenge failed.

---