https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178303 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. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:15:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178303 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178303