Limited writ review of pre-deposit orders upheld where no sufficient basis existed to disturb the interim direction.

Writ interference with an interim pre-deposit order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act was refused because the Court found no sufficient basis to disturb the order. The dispute concerned a substantial pre-deposit during pendency of a statutory appeal, arising from a credit controversy and the assessee's classification of mixer grinders as parts of refrigerators in a combi-pack clearance. Applying the limited scope of judicial review over pre-deposit directions, the Court concluded that the impugned order was consistent with law and did not call for interference. The challenge to the pre-deposit requirement therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim order directing pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute arose from the demand that the assessee pre-deposit a substantial amount during the pendency of the statutory appeal. The Court considered the nature of the credit dispute, the manner in which the goods were cleared as a combi-pack, and the challenge to the assessee's description of mixer grinders as parts of refrigerators. Relying on the limited scope of interference with pre-deposit orders and the absence of any sufficient basis to dislodge the impugned interim order, the Court held that the order was consistent with law and did not warrant writ interference.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit order was upheld and the challenge to it failed.

---