Pre-deposit compliance under excise law required fresh appellate consideration after the writ relief exceeded the petition's scope.

The writ challenge was confined to the appellate order, so quashing the order-in-original went beyond the scope of the petition and was set aside. The appellate authority was also required to examine whether payments made under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 could satisfy the Section 35F pre-deposit requirement and then decide the appeal on merits. The appellate order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, including compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the order-in-original when the writ petition challenged only the appellate order. (ii) Whether the appellate authority was required to examine the respondent's contention that payments made under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 satisfied the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to decide the appeal on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the order-in-original when the writ petition challenged only the appellate order.

Analysis: The writ challenge was confined to the order of the appellate authority dated 15.09.2023. There was no prayer to assail the order-in-original dated 24.08.2022. The setting aside of the order-in-original therefore travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The quashing of the order-in-original was held to be unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority was required to examine the respondent's contention that payments made under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 satisfied the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to decide the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The respondent's case was that the amounts already paid under the discharge certificate ought to be treated as meeting the statutory pre-deposit requirement, while the appellants maintained that the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit could not be dispensed with. The matter required the appellate authority to consider both the alleged compliance with pre-deposit and the merits of the appeal in a common adjudication.

Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits, including the question of compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the interference with the order-in-original was reversed, and the dispute over the appellate order was sent back for reconsideration by the appellate authority.

---