Mandatory pre-deposit for statutory appeal cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction absent statutory authority.

A mandatory pre-deposit prescribed as a condition for entertaining a statutory appeal under the Central Excise regime cannot be waived or reduced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The appellate forum had no power to dilute the statutory deposit requirement, and the Court treated non-compliance as fatal to maintainability of the appeal. The attempt to use writ jurisdiction to bypass a clear statutory condition attached to the right of appeal was rejected, and the dismissal for non-deposit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition of mandatory pre-deposit for entertaining the statutory appeal under the Central Excise regime could be relaxed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The Court noted that the governing provision made deposit a mandatory condition for maintaining the appeal and that the appellate forum had no power to waive or reduce the amount. Relying on the settled legal position, the Court held that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass or dilute a clear statutory condition attached to the right of appeal.

Conclusion: The request to relax the pre-deposit requirement was rejected and the dismissal of the appeal for non-deposit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes mandatory pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining an appeal, the requirement cannot be waived or diluted in writ jurisdiction absent a statutory basis.

---