Pre-deposit under excise law was inapplicable where the challenged order did not demand duty from the appellant, and recovery was stayed.

The pre-deposit requirement under Section 35(F) was inapplicable because the impugned order quantified alleged evasion but did not demand duty from the appellant. As the statutory condition applies only where the appealed order relates to duty demanded from the person appealing, no deposit was required or could be dispensed with on that basis. The Tribunal also used incidental powers to protect the subject matter of the appeal by staying recovery of duty until disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35(F) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applied where the order appealed against did not demand any duty from the appellant, and whether recovery of duty could be stayed pending appeal.

Analysis: The order under challenge quantified alleged evasion but did not specify any duty demand against the applicant. Since the statutory condition for pre-deposit is attracted only when the decision or order appealed against relates to duty demanded from the person appealing, the requirement of making or dispensing with a deposit did not arise. In aid of the pending appeal, the Tribunal also exercised incidental powers to preserve the subject matter from recovery action.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit provision was held inapplicable because no duty had been demanded, and recovery of duty from the applicant was stayed till disposal of the appeal.

---