Pre-deposit waiver principles applied where the dispute was arguable and factory closure supported relief from the deposit condition.

The HC held that the Tribunal had not properly exercised its discretion in insisting on a pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The dispute was found to be arguable, and the closure of the factory, which was not controverted, supported waiver of the deposit condition. On that basis, the Court dispensed with the pre-deposit requirement and set aside the Tribunal's interim order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition of pre-deposit imposed by the Tribunal under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was liable to be dispensed with.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order directing a partial deposit pending appeal. The Court found from the Tribunal's own observations that the dispute was arguable and that the circumstances justified waiver, particularly in view of the closure of the factory, which had not been controverted. On that basis, the Court held that the Tribunal had not properly exercised its jurisdiction in imposing the condition of pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The condition of pre-deposit was dispensed with and the Tribunal's interim order was set aside, in favour of the petitioner.

---