https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45110 Interference under Article 226 was sought against Tribunal orders dismissing an appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition and refusing restoration. The appeal had been rejected for failure to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and the Tribunal's order was treated as one made under Section 35D, against which a reference lay under Section 35G. On that basis, the High Court held that writ jurisdiction need not be exercised and found no ground to disturb either the dismissal or the restoration order. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:39:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45110 Interference under Article 226 was sought against Tribunal orders dismissing an appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition and refusing restoration. The appeal had been rejected for failure to comply with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and the Tribunal's order was treated as one made under Section 35D, against which a reference lay under Section 35G. On that basis, the High Court held that writ jurisdiction need not be exercised and found no ground to disturb either the dismissal or the restoration order. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45110