Court criticizes late appeal, mandates additional deposit. Compliance may lead to case review.

The Court criticized the writ petitioner for not filing the statutory appeal within the prescribed time, leading to a delay of 467 days. Despite disapproval of bypassing statutory authorities, a resolution was reached where the writ petitioner agreed to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 25,00,000 within three months. If the deposit was made on time, the matter would be reconsidered by the Joint Commissioner as per the Trial Court's order; otherwise, the Trial Court's order would be set aside.

---

---

Issues involved:
Appeal against judgment and order setting aside a previous order by Joint Commissioner of Excise and referring the matter back for rehearing.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against a judgment and order dated 02.08.2013, where the Trial Court set aside the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Excise. The Trial Court referred the matter back to the Joint Commissioner for rehearing, subject to the deposit of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 by the writ petitioner. The appellant, represented by Mr. Bharadwaj, contended that the writ petitioner had the opportunity to appeal before the statutory authority but failed to do so within the prescribed time. The writ petitioner chose to invoke writ jurisdiction instead of approaching the Tribunal, which according to the appellant, was a mistake. On the other hand, Mr. Khaitan, representing the writ petitioner, argued that the copy of the order dated 30.11.2005 was not received by the client due to the mill's closure for an extended period. He further stated that approaching the Tribunal was not favorable due to certain circumstances, leading to the writ Court being approached. The Trial Court was satisfied with the writ petitioner's contentions and passed the order, which the appellant sought to set aside.

Upon hearing both sides, the Court acknowledged the criticism that the statutory appeal was not filed within the prescribed time, indicating a lack of due diligence on the part of the writ petitioner. The appeal was filed after 467 days, far exceeding the 30-day limit for condonation of delay by the Appellate Authority. The Court expressed disapproval of the tendency to approach the High Court without exhausting remedies before statutory authorities. However, a resolution was reached where the writ petitioner agreed to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 25,00,000 within three months, in addition to the initial Rs. 10,00,000 already deposited. The Court disposed of the appeal with an order stating that if the further sum was deposited within the stipulated time, the matter would be reconsidered by the Joint Commissioner as per the Trial Court's order. Failure to make the deposit within the specified period would result in the Trial Court's order being set aside.

---