Pre-deposit orders and financial hardship: writ interference declined, with recovery stayed pending expeditious appeal disposal.

The Tribunal's reduced pre-deposit requirement was upheld because it was fixed after considering financial hardship and disclosed no error of law warranting interference under Article 226. Recovery was nevertheless stayed pending disposal of the statutory appeal, and the appeal was directed to be heard expeditiously on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit of part of the disputed duty and penalty called for interference under Article 226, and whether recovery should remain stayed pending disposal of the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had reduced the pre-deposit amount after considering the petitioner's financial hardship. The order was found to disclose no error of law warranting writ interference. At the same time, the court directed expeditious disposal of the appeal and stayed recovery in view of the direction that the appeal be heard on merits without insisting upon the pre-deposit.

Outcome: No interference was made with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order, but the appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously and recovery was stayed till disposal.

---