Pre-deposit discretion under excise law upheld where Tribunal balanced prima facie merits, hardship, and revenue interests.

The Tribunal's power under Section 35F to require a pre-deposit includes discretion to waive the whole or part of the amount, or impose conditions, according to the facts of each case. That discretion must be exercised on sound legal principles, including prima facie merits, undue hardship, and balance of equities, and writ interference under Article 226 is warranted only if the discretion is illegal or based on improper principles. On the facts, the Tribunal had considered the arguable nature of the appeals and the competing interests of the parties and revenue, so the partial pre-deposit orders were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order directing partial pre-deposit under Section 35F was illegal or warranted interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The writ court refrained from deciding the merits of the excise dispute because the appeals were pending before the Tribunal. It held that the Tribunal has discretion under Section 35F to waive the whole or part of the pre-deposit, or to impose suitable conditions, depending on the facts of each case. The power is to be exercised on sound legal principles, taking into account prima facie merits, undue hardship, and the need to balance equities. Interference under Article 226 is justified only where the discretion is shown to have been exercised illegally or on improper principles. On the facts, the Tribunal had considered the arguable nature of the appeals and balanced the competing interests of the parties and revenue.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's partial pre-deposit orders were upheld and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercising pre-deposit jurisdiction, the Tribunal may grant full, partial, or conditional waiver based on prima facie merits and the balance of convenience, and a writ court will interfere only where that discretion is exercised on unsound legal principles or causes undue hardship.

---