Statutory pre-deposit requirements cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction to restore an appeal without compliance.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass a statutory pre-deposit condition for pursuing an appeal. Where the assessee failed to comply with the Tribunal's direction to deposit part of the duty demand, did not challenge the pre-deposit order within time, sought no extension, and remained unwilling to deposit even at hearing, the appeal remedy could not be restored on merits without compliance. The statutory deposit requirement remained binding as a condition for availing appellate relief, and the writ petition was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained to bypass the statutory requirement of pre-deposit and secure restoration of the appeal for hearing on merits without compliance with the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The dispute arose after the assessee failed to comply with the Tribunal's direction to deposit a part of the duty demand as a condition for hearing the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee had not challenged the pre-deposit order in time, had not sought extension for compliance, and was not willing even at the hearing to make the deposit. In such circumstances, the requirement of pre-deposit remained a statutory condition for availing the appeal remedy, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to circumvent that condition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for bypassing the pre-deposit requirement and was decided against the assessee.

---