SICA protection does not excuse the excise pre-deposit requirement, as the statutory moratorium covers only specified proceedings.

Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to specified proceedings such as winding up, execution or distress against property, appointment of a receiver, and suits or proceedings for recovery of money or enforcement of security. A statutory pre-deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 does not fall within those protected categories, so the SICA moratorium does not exempt an appellant from making that deposit. The Supreme Court accordingly held that the objection based on Section 22 failed and the appeal could not succeed on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies so as to exempt an appellant from making the pre-deposit required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 grants relief only in respect of specified proceedings, namely winding up, execution or distress against property, appointment of a receiver, and suits or proceedings for recovery of money or enforcement of security. The requirement of making a pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944 does not fall within any of those categories. The contention was also outside the scope of the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not exempt the appellant from the statutory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944; the appeal fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 applies only to the specified classes of proceedings and does not extend to a statutory pre-deposit obligation under excise law.

---