High Court upholds deposit order, citing Section 22 inapplicability.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the order directing a deposit of Rs. 3,00,000, citing the inapplicability of Section 22 protection under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2003, clarifying that the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, did not fall within the scope of Section 22. The appellant was granted a one-month extension to comply with the deposit requirement set by the Tribunal, with no costs awarded in the matter.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against impugned order directing deposit of Rs. 3,00,000; Violation of Section 22 of the Act; Applicability of Supreme Court decision in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2003.

Analysis:
The writ appeal was filed against an order dated 17-1-2005 by a learned single Judge, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,00,000 within three months and granting a stay of recovery of the balance amount. The appellant contended that they had approached the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the condition in the impugned order was alleged to be in violation of Section 22 of the Act.

The High Court, referring to the Supreme Court decision in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2003, held that the payment of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not fall under the categories specified in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Therefore, the protection of Section 22 was deemed not applicable in this case. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, but an additional one-month extension was granted to the appellant to make the pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal. No costs were awarded in this matter.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the impugned order directing the deposit, citing the Supreme Court precedent and clarifying the inapplicability of Section 22 protection in such circumstances. The appellant was given a limited extension to comply with the deposit requirement set by the Tribunal.

---