Writ interference with pre-deposit orders is unwarranted where the Tribunal has already granted substantial relief after considering hardship.

Writ interference with a Tribunal's order on pre-deposit was held unwarranted where the Tribunal had already considered the age and depreciation of the equipment, the petitioner's claimed financial hardship, and had granted substantial relief by reducing the pre-deposit and regulating recovery during the appeal. The Court found no clear legal or factual error and noted that the cited authorities were distinguishable on their facts. The governing principle is that, when the appellate forum has applied its mind to the relevant contentions and granted meaningful concession, supervisory writ jurisdiction should not be used to reappraise the pre-deposit decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction with the Tribunal's order modifying the pre-deposit requirement for the duty amount.

Analysis: The Tribunal had already considered the petitioner's plea regarding the age and depreciation of the equipment, as well as the financial hardship claimed. It had granted substantial concession by reducing the pre-deposit and regulating recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The Court found no basis to infer inability to comply merely from alleged losses, and the cited decisions were held distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: No interference was called for in writ jurisdiction, and the challenge to the Tribunal's pre-deposit order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate authority has already granted substantial relief on pre-deposit after considering the relevant contentions, writ interference is unwarranted unless a clear legal or factual error is shown.

---