Pre-deposit under excise law remains enforceable despite BIFR proceedings, with limited relief for claimed financial hardship.

Pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act is not barred merely because proceedings are pending before the BIFR, as such deposits do not fall within the protection of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. In excise matters, duty collected from customers is treated as money belonging to the Government, so a plea of financial hardship carries limited weight after the demand has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). Where the Tribunal has already reduced the amount to be deposited, insistence on that reduced pre-deposit remains justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act could be insisted upon despite proceedings before the BIFR and whether the amount directed to be deposited ought to be reduced on the ground of financial hardship.

Analysis: The Court held that deposits required under Section 35F do not fall within the categories protected by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, and therefore pendency before the BIFR does not bar insistence on pre-deposit. It further held that, in excise matters, the duty collected from customers is ordinarily money belonging to the Government, and the plea of financial hardship carries limited weight where the demand has already been confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had already restricted the pre-deposit to a part of the total demand.

Conclusion: The direction requiring pre-deposit was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---