Statutory pre-deposit cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction, and co-noticee duty payment cannot offset separate liability.

Writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the mandatory statutory pre-deposit required for an appeal before the Tribunal, especially after the petitioner had already been directed to pursue that appellate remedy and failed to comply. The court noted that no new circumstance justified reopening the settled position, and the petitioner's attempt to challenge the original order indirectly under Article 226 was impermissible. It also held that duty paid by a co-noticee company could not be adjusted against the petitioner's separate pre-deposit obligation, as the liabilities were distinct and no statutory basis for such set-off existed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained to bypass the statutory pre-deposit requirement for the appeal before the Tribunal, and whether payment of duty by a co-noticee company could be adjusted against the petitioner's separate pre-deposit obligation.

Analysis: The petitioner had already been relegated to the statutory appellate remedy and had failed to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit condition before the Tribunal. That failure did not create any fresh right to invoke writ jurisdiction for relaxation of the same statutory condition. No subsequent change in circumstances was shown to justify reopening the issue. The liabilities arising from the order in original were treated as separate, and there was no statutory basis to appropriate or adjust duty paid by the company against the petitioner's own pre-deposit requirement. The petition was also an impermissible attempt to do indirectly what could not be done directly by challenging the order in original under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was not entitled to any relaxation or adjustment of the statutory pre-deposit condition.

---