https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46136 Writ interference under Article 226 was declined against orders rejecting appeal-related relief for non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit condition. The petitioner had been given sufficient time to deposit the amount, but paid only a part and failed to satisfy the balance even after extension. The appellate authority had considered the request to dispense with pre-deposit and still permitted deposit followed by an early hearing, so the plea of non-application of mind was rejected. In these circumstances, no legal infirmity or denial of consideration was shown to justify upsetting the discretionary orders. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46136 Writ interference under Article 226 was declined against orders rejecting appeal-related relief for non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit condition. The petitioner had been given sufficient time to deposit the amount, but paid only a part and failed to satisfy the balance even after extension. The appellate authority had considered the request to dispense with pre-deposit and still permitted deposit followed by an early hearing, so the plea of non-application of mind was rejected. In these circumstances, no legal infirmity or denial of consideration was shown to justify upsetting the discretionary orders. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46136