Writ interference refused where appeal failed for non-compliance with pre-deposit and restoration was also denied.

Interference under Article 226 was sought against Tribunal orders dismissing an appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition and refusing restoration. The appeal had been rejected for failure to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and the Tribunal's order was treated as one made under Section 35D, against which a reference lay under Section 35G. On that basis, the High Court held that writ jurisdiction need not be exercised and found no ground to disturb either the dismissal or the restoration order.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted against the Tribunal's orders dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition and rejecting restoration.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Tribunal's order was treated as one passed under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, for which a reference lay under Section 35G of the Act. In the circumstances, the High Court found no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction, and the restoration order also did not call for interference.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with either Tribunal order, and the challenge failed.

---