Pre-deposit orders in excise appeals are rarely disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent arbitrariness or shocking perversity.

Interference under Article 226 with an appellate authority's interim order fixing pre-deposit in an excise appeal is unwarranted where the order is discretionary and interlocutory. A plea of hardship not raised before the appellate authority cannot be relied on at the threshold, and the proposed reading of the relevant Central Excise provisions for reduction of pre-deposit cannot be examined in a manner that would effectively grant the main relief at the interim stage. Judicial review is confined to cases where the interim order is arbitrary or shockingly perverse; otherwise, the pre-deposit direction should stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the appellate authority's interim order fixing the quantum of pre-deposit pending the excise appeal.

Analysis: The challenge was to an interlocutory order passed in the exercise of discretionary power on a stay application. The Court held that the plea of hardship had not been raised before the appellate authority and that the interim interpretation of Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise Act and the reduction sought under Section 35F could not be examined at the threshold. As the relief sought would, in substance, amount to granting the main relief itself, interference at the interim stage was unwarranted unless the order was shown to be arbitrary or shockingly perverse.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the pre-deposit order, and the petition was rejected.

---