Pre-deposit non-compliance does not defeat maintainability; the appeal must still be decided on merits.

An appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 remains maintainable despite non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction under Section 35F. The appellate authority must still dispose of the appeal under Section 35C by confirming, modifying, annulling, or remanding the order appealed against, and cannot treat default in deposit as defeating maintainability. The appeal was therefore required to be heard and decided on merits whether or not the deposit condition was complied with.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 renders an appeal under Section 35B not maintainable, and whether the appellate authority must dispose of the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order directing partial pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal. The Court relied on its earlier view that an appeal filed under Section 35B must be disposed of under Section 35C by confirming, modifying, annulling, or remanding the order appealed against. It held that failure to comply with the pre-deposit direction under Section 35F does not affect the maintainability of the appeal.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition does not make the appeal not maintainable, and the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits whether or not the petitioner complies with the deposit direction.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained a direction ensuring adjudication of the appeal on merits notwithstanding any default in pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 remains maintainable despite non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction under Section 35F, and must be decided under Section 35C on merits.

---