Court dismisses application for time extension to deposit, stresses compliance with orders. Seeking review impermissible.

The court dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of time to deposit a required amount, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with court orders. The court noted the appellant's delayed approach and highlighted that seeking an extension would amount to reviewing the earlier order, which is impermissible. The court clarified that challenging the original order in appeal to the Supreme Court would have been the proper remedy if unsatisfied with the granted time for deposit. The application was found devoid of merit and dismissed, underscoring the significance of adhering to court directives promptly.

---

---

Issues: Compliance with court order for depositing money and extension of time for compliance.

In the judgment delivered by A.M. Sapre and A.K. Goswami, JJ., the court dealt with a case where the appellant failed to comply with a court order to deposit a required amount by a specified date. The appellant later filed an application seeking more time to make the deposit, citing financial hardship as the reason. The court noted that despite being granted an indulgence to deposit the money by a certain date, the appellant did not comply and waited for over a year and a half before filing the application for an extension. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's casual approach towards compliance with the court order and dismissed the application for an extension of time to deposit the amount. The court emphasized that the proper remedy for the appellant would have been to challenge the original order in appeal to the Supreme Court if unsatisfied with the granted time for deposit. The court clarified that extending the period to deposit the amount would amount to reviewing their earlier order, which is impermissible. The court highlighted that had the appellant deposited the money late and then sought an extension, they might have considered condonation of delay, but since that was not the case, the application was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Miscellaneous Case No. 409 of 2012, which was made in Central Excise Appeal No. 2 of 2012 and decided on 6-9-2012, as it was found to be lacking in merit. The court emphasized that the appellant's failure to comply with the court order in a timely manner and the subsequent delayed application for an extension did not warrant an extension of time for depositing the required amount. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of timely compliance with court orders and the appropriate legal remedies available in case of dissatisfaction with court decisions.

---