Article 226 review and pre-deposit control: High Court jurisdiction survived, and further deposit was unjustified on the prima facie facts.

Article 226 jurisdiction was available because the Tribunal was not constituted under a law expressly excluding High Court review, and statutory finality of appellate orders did not by itself oust writ jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction was also satisfied as the impugned order was passed in Delhi and the respondent authority was located there. On the pre-deposit issue, interlocutory stay orders require a strong prima facie case and hardship before interference; where duty had already been realised along the supply chain, insisting on further deposit was unjustified. The Tribunal's pre-deposit direction was therefore quashed and the appeal was to be heard on merits without further deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's stay order; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's stay order.

Analysis: The Tribunal was constituted under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and not under a law made to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 323B. Section 35C(4) declaring appellate orders final did not by itself oust writ jurisdiction. The later enactment specifically providing for exclusion of court jurisdiction had not come into operation. Since the impugned order was passed in Delhi and the respondent authority was situated there, the territorial requirements of Article 226 were satisfied.

Conclusion: The High Court had territorial and constitutional jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing pre-deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal.

Analysis: Interference with an interlocutory stay order is not routine, and a strong prima facie case must be shown in addition to hardship. On the admitted facts, excise duty had already been realised on the chassis and on the bus from the body builder, and the total duty received was not less than the duty that would have been payable if the manufacturing activity had been carried out wholly by the petitioner. Requiring an additional pre-deposit would therefore amount to insisting on further revenue despite full duty having already been realised on the same vehicle chain. The Tribunal had failed to give due weight to this prima facie position while fixing the pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The direction to deposit Rs. 8 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal was not justified and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's pre-deposit order was set aside, and the appeal before the Tribunal was directed to be heard on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may interfere with an interlocutory pre-deposit order where the Tribunal has ignored a strong prima facie case and the jurisdiction of the High Court is not expressly excluded; mere statutory finality of appellate orders does not oust Article 226 review.

---