Pre-deposit relief under Central Excise law reduced after financial capacity and parity with co-noticee were considered.

The High Court interfered with the Tribunal's pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act after considering the petitioners' financial position and the fact that a co-noticee in the same adjudication had been directed to deposit only a lower amount. It held that a reduced deposit would balance the interests of both sides while allowing the appeals to be heard on merits, without expressing any view on the duty demand, confiscation, or penalties. The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs, after which the appeals were to be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's orders requiring a substantial pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were liable to be interfered with, and what amount of deposit should be imposed as a condition for hearing the appeals on merits.

Analysis: The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's refusal to grant relief from pre-deposit, pointing out that in a connected matter arising from the same adjudication order the co-noticee had been directed to deposit only Rs. 5 lakhs. The Court took note of the petitioners' financial position, including the bank balance placed before it, and found that a reduced deposit would balance the interests of both sides while preserving the Tribunal's opportunity to decide the appeals finally. No observation was made on the merits of the duty demand, confiscation, or penalties.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs by the stipulated date, after which the Tribunal was to hear and decide the appeals on merits without dismissing them for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

---