1994 (11) TMI 141 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of time for pre-deposit before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to grant relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Compliance with orders of the Tribunal and the High Court.
4. Justifiability of the Tribunal's extension of time beyond the High Court's grant.
5. Review of previous orders and conduct of the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking an extension of time for pre-deposit of dues before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had initially allowed the petitioner to deposit a reduced sum, which the petitioner failed to comply with within the specified time. Subsequently, the High Court granted an extension, but the petitioner still failed to deposit the amount on time. The Tribunal later stated that only the High Court could extend the time, leading to the present writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking relief. The Court noted the petitioner's non-compliance with both the Tribunal's and its own orders, emphasizing that the Tribunal could not extend time granted by the High Court. The petitioner's delay in approaching the Court after the Tribunal's decision was also highlighted.

The Court declined to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner, stating that it could not compel the Tribunal to act beyond its authority or issue a mandamus against itself. The Court found the petitioner's conduct did not warrant a review of previous orders. It was mentioned that the petitioner still had the option to deposit the remaining amount before the next Tribunal date or seek additional time from the Tribunal for compliance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the lack of grounds for extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of compliance with judicial orders, the limitations on the High Court's power to compel the Tribunal, and the need for timely action by petitioners in legal proceedings. The decision serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing writ petitions and the significance of adherence to court directives in matters of pre-deposit before appellate bodies.