https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786533 Writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the mandatory statutory pre-deposit required for an appeal before the Tribunal, especially after the petitioner had already been directed to pursue that appellate remedy and failed to comply. The court noted that no new circumstance justified reopening the settled position, and the petitioner's attempt to challenge the original order indirectly under Article 226 was impermissible. It also held that duty paid by a co-noticee company could not be adjusted against the petitioner's separate pre-deposit obligation, as the liabilities were distinct and no statutory basis for such set-off existed. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Feb 2026 08:29:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786533 Writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the mandatory statutory pre-deposit required for an appeal before the Tribunal, especially after the petitioner had already been directed to pursue that appellate remedy and failed to comply. The court noted that no new circumstance justified reopening the settled position, and the petitioner's attempt to challenge the original order indirectly under Article 226 was impermissible. It also held that duty paid by a co-noticee company could not be adjusted against the petitioner's separate pre-deposit obligation, as the liabilities were distinct and no statutory basis for such set-off existed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786533