https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236212 The High Court dismissed the petition challenging an interlocutory order requiring a deposit under the Central Excise Act. The court held that the appellate authority had discretion to exempt the petitioner from depositing the entire sum, finding the order proper and not arbitrary. Emphasizing limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the court concluded that interference with interlocutory orders is unwarranted unless there is illegality or material irregularity. Citing that the impugned order was within the appellate authority's discretion, the court dismissed the petition at the motion hearing stage. en-us Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2015 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236212 The High Court dismissed the petition challenging an interlocutory order requiring a deposit under the Central Excise Act. The court held that the appellate authority had discretion to exempt the petitioner from depositing the entire sum, finding the order proper and not arbitrary. Emphasizing limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the court concluded that interference with interlocutory orders is unwarranted unless there is illegality or material irregularity. Citing that the impugned order was within the appellate authority's discretion, the court dismissed the petition at the motion hearing stage. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236212