Tribunal-controlled pre-deposit relief limits writ interference, with grievances on time or modification to be raised before the Tribunal itself.

Where an appellate tribunal has already considered pre-deposit, assessed hardship and fixed a deposit condition, the High Court will ordinarily not interfere with a subsequent detention order issued while no stay operated against the demand. Any dispute about the alleged offer, modification of the pre-deposit terms, or extension of time should be pursued before the Tribunal itself. The court therefore declined to go behind the Tribunal's order and left the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from that forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the detention order passed during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, and whether the petitioner should be left to seek modification and extension of time before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The order under challenge was passed when no stay operated against the earlier excise demand. The Tribunal had already considered the question of pre-deposit, noted the counsel's offer, and fixed a deposit condition while recording that there was no prima facie case and that the financial position had been examined. In these circumstances, the High Court declined to go behind the Tribunal's order and held that any grievance regarding the alleged offer or the time for deposit should be placed before the Tribunal itself.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the Tribunal for modification of the pre-deposit order and for extension of time, and no interference was warranted with the detention order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and was disposed of by directing the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate tribunal has already dealt with pre-deposit and related hardship, the writ court will ordinarily not interfere and will leave the party to seek relief before the tribunal itself.

---