Pre-deposit procedure under excise law requires first deciding the stay request before dismissing an appeal for non-compliance.

Pre-deposit under Section 35F could not justify dismissal of appeals unless the stay application was first considered and the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to comply. The appellate authority had to decide whether deposit should be waived or deferred, or fix time for payment; only failure to comply without sufficient cause could lead to dismissal. Mere non-deposit, without that prior procedure, was not legally sufficient. The dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals could be dismissed for non-deposit of duty without first considering the stay applications and granting the appellants an opportunity to comply with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The impugned appellate order showed dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, there was nothing to show that the stay applications had been taken up and decided first, or that any order had been passed dispensing with deposit or fixing a time for deposit. The required procedure was that the appellate authority must first decide the stay request, then either waive pre-deposit or allow reasonable time for compliance, and only upon failure to comply without sufficient cause could dismissal follow. Mere non-deposit, by itself, was not enough.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals for non-deposit was not in accordance with law and was set aside.

---