https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47279 The High Court declined to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction against a departmental excise demand and penalty where the assessee had an efficacious appellate remedy but failed to comply with the Tribunal's stay deposit condition. The petitioner disputed differential excise duty and the penalty, yet did not deposit the amount directed for stay and allowed the appeal to be dismissed without securing a merits adjudication. The court treated this abandonment of the appellate route and non-compliance with the Tribunal's order as fatal to equitable interference and refused to reopen the departmental determination. The petition was dismissed without interference in the demand or penalty. en-us Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47279 The High Court declined to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction against a departmental excise demand and penalty where the assessee had an efficacious appellate remedy but failed to comply with the Tribunal's stay deposit condition. The petitioner disputed differential excise duty and the penalty, yet did not deposit the amount directed for stay and allowed the appeal to be dismissed without securing a merits adjudication. The court treated this abandonment of the appellate route and non-compliance with the Tribunal's order as fatal to equitable interference and refused to reopen the departmental determination. The petition was dismissed without interference in the demand or penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47279