1. M/s Isha Chemicals and Micronutrients Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition questioning Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunals Order dated 02-09-2002 refusing restoration of its appeal which had been dismissed earlier because of petitioners non-appearance, omission to file application seeking waiver of deposit of the amount questioned in the appeal and non-deposit of the duties and penalties. 2. Projecting its grievance against the impugned order and giving the history of the case, the petitioner company says that Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise had passed an order confirming duty and imposing penalty of Rs.3 lacs under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on 15-07-98. An appeal was taken by the Company against this Order to the Commissioner who directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3 lacs towards duty and Rs.1.5 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty. The Company could not comply with this Order of the Commissioner which resulted in dismissal of its appeal vide Commissioners Order dated 01-02-2000. The petitioner thereafter approached the Customs Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was dismissed in default of appearance and for non-prosecution on 11-01-2002. Restoration application filed by the Company too was dismissed by the Tribunal on 02-09-2002. 3. The petitioner says that it had engaged a counsel to represent it before the Appellate Tribunal, but it was because of the negligence of the counsel engaged by the Company that the petitioner company could not file application seeking waiver of the deposit of the impugned duty and penalty before the appellate forum. The Company additionally says that one of its Director Mr. N.J. Durrani, who had to appear to pursue the appeal, could not do so because he had been suffering from heart ailment. 4. The petitioners case, in nut-shell thus is that it should not suffer because of the negligence of his counsel and its appeal was required to be heard on merits by the Appellate Tribunal. 5. The case projected by the respondents in their objections to the writ petition is that the petitioners Unit was engaged in the manufacture of Agricultural Grade Zinc Sulphate falling under subheading 2833 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 5. The case projected by the respondents in their objections to the writ petition is that the petitioners Unit was engaged in the manufacture of Agricultural Grade Zinc Sulphate falling under subheading 2833 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Company was found to have manufactured "Zinc Slabs" falling under sub-heading 7901.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by the Central Excise Staff on their visit to the factory premises of the petitioner on 15-05-1992. Two metal slabs having markings of "Zinc" weighing 57.440 kilograms and valued at Rs.3532.56 were recovered from the factory premises. Having reasons to believe that the "metal slabs" had been manufactured by the petitioner company and cleared clandestinely without payment of Central Excise Duty, these were seized by the Central Excise Staff. Further scrutiny of the records of the Company revealed that the Company had supplied Zinc metal to number of parties. On search of the premises of these parties, Zinc Metal cleared clandestinely by the petitioner company without payment of Central Excise Duty was recovered and accordingly seized. The petitioner company was found to have evaded payment of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 6,42,859/- in contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. The respondents say that Mr. N.J. Durrani, the Managing Director of the Company kept on delaying the final adjudication in the matter. It was after providing sufficient opportunity to the Company and its Managing Director and inviting their objections in the matter, that the case was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh who vide its Order dated 15-07-1998 directed as follows: - "In view of the above findings, I pass the following order: - (a) I order confiscation of zinc metal seized from the Noticees and different parties. However the option is given to them to be exercised within one month of this order for redeeming the confiscated goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation as mentioned hereunder. (i) The `Noticees may redeem 57-440 Kg. of confiscated zinc metal on payment of fine of Rs.4000/- and Central Excise duty of Rs.406.24 involved thereon respectively. (ii) M/s. Tran Asia Tubes & Industries Ltd., Jammu M/s. S.K.S. Industries Birpur, Jammu and M/s. Mahavir Metal Alloys Gangyal, Jammu may redeem the 27.650 Kg. 628 kg and 713 kg. of confiscated zinc metal on payment of fine of Rs. 1900/-Rs.4200/- & Rs.4800/- in lieu of confiscation respectively. (ii) M/s. Tran Asia Tubes & Industries Ltd., Jammu M/s. S.K.S. Industries Birpur, Jammu and M/s. Mahavir Metal Alloys Gangyal, Jammu may redeem the 27.650 Kg. 628 kg and 713 kg. of confiscated zinc metal on payment of fine of Rs. 1900/-Rs.4200/- & Rs.4800/- in lieu of confiscation respectively. (b) The `Noticees must forthwith pay the Central Excise duty of Rs. 6,42,859.00. (c) I impose a penalty of Rs. Three lacs on the `Noticeesunder Rule 173Q, of the Central Excise Rules 1944 for contravening various provisions of law as alleged in the Show Cause `Noticees. (d) I impose personal penalty of Rs. Two lacs on Sh. N.J. Durani Director of the `Noticees. (e) Interest is payable as laid down under Section 11AA & 11AB of the Act of 1944." 7. The Company filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central, Excise and Customs, Chandigarh seeking stay of the Deputy Commissioners Order. The Commissioner (Appeals), disposed of the stay application observing as follows: - "I have considered the stay application and found that on merits the cases do not lie in their favour in as much as there was no denial of natural justice. The appellant had avoided to attend the hearings on the date as and when fixed by the Department and also on the date when they chose as per their convenience. They are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs towards duty and Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively as penalty on appellant Nos. l and 2 within a period of 15 days failing which the appeal is liable to be dismissed for default without making further reference." 8. The appellant failed to comply with the order. Its appeal was accordingly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 28th of January, 2000. The petitioner company thereafter filed an appeal before Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The case was adjourned several times for the non-appearance of the appellant, by the Tribunal. It later, vide its final Order No. A/109/110/2002-NB (SN) dated 11-01-2002 dismissed the appeal. Restoration application too was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant had shown its unwillingness to deposit the amount which was a precondition for consideration of the appeal, and that too in the absence of any application having been filed by the appellant seeking waiver of deposit of the penalties before the Appellate Tribunal. 9. Restoration application too was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the appellant had shown its unwillingness to deposit the amount which was a precondition for consideration of the appeal, and that too in the absence of any application having been filed by the appellant seeking waiver of deposit of the penalties before the Appellate Tribunal. 9. The respondents oppose the maintainability of this writ petition additionally on the ground that, if aggrieved, by the action of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the petitioner company was required to file an appeal under Section 35-L of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Honble Supreme Court of India and a reference was permissible at the instance of the Tribunal to the High court in terms of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. Faced with the situation that the writ petition of the petitioner company involved adjudication of disputed questions of fact as to whether or not the representative of the appellant company and the Company itself was negligent in prosecuting the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and whether the Company was not responsible for its counsels omission to file an application for waiver of deposit of the penalties along with the appeal before the Tribunal, learned counsel submitted that the Company had deposited the penalties during the pendency of the writ petition and now the appeal of the appellant could thus be heard by the Tribunal for its adjudication, in view of the case set up by the petitioner in its amended writ petition. 12. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Learned Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked by the petitioner company which had all along remained a defiant defaulter in the proceedings which were taken by it to avoid payment of excise duty and penalties and in that view of the matter order passed by the authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944, because of petitioners not complying with the requirement of the statutory provisions in depositing the excise duty and penalty before seeking consideration of its appeal, cannot be questioned because the orders of the authorities under the Central Excise Act do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Learned Counsel refers to a Division Bench Judgment of High Court of judicature at Delhi reported as Network India v. Collector of Central Excise, 1997 (91) E.L. T.3O3 (Del), to support his submission. 13. Perusal of the Order of Deputy Commissioner Central Excise indicates that the petitioner company had been afforded sufficient opportunity to oppose imposition of penalty and duty on the seized excisable items. The company and its representative had, however, avoided participation in the proceedings on one, pretext or the other. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise had thus, on the basis of facts, appearing from the records, found the petitioner company responsible for evading Central Excise Duty in clandestinely clearing "zinc metal" from its premises to those from whose premises it had been later recovered and seized. The conduct of the petitioner company and its Managing Director, as is evident from the perusal of the orders of the authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not appear to be that of bonafide litigant who may be interested in seeking adjudication of its claims before the statutory forums. The conduct of the Company and its Managing Director, on the other hand, demonstrates their resolve to delay, on one or the other pretext, the payment of the duty and penalties, besides avoiding the compliance of the statutory provisions requiring deposit of the penalties and duty before seeking consideration of the appeals which had been preferred by the Company before the Forums prescribed under the Act. 14. The Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, is self explanatory. It does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. The Tribunal and the Commissioner had passed the orders impugned in the writ petition on being satisfied that the statutory provisions regulating the filing of appeals under the Central Excise Act had not been complied with by the appellants and its Managing Director and as a consequence thereof, the appeals were not required to be considered. 15. The consequential orders passed by the authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be reopened for hearing the appeals after a gap of about four years when the petitioner company is stated to have deposited the penalties and the Excise Duty, because such a course may not be permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. 16. Judicial review of the orders passed by the statutory authorities would be permissible only if such authorities were found to have acted contrary to the provisions of the laws in force or to the provisions of the Constitution of India. Such review may not permit delving deep in factual matters such as; whether the counsel had been negligent in filing the appeal and in its prosecution before the statutory authorities?, whether the litigant did not have the financial position to satisfy the statutory requirement of depositing the impugned penalty and duty before filing the appeals before the statutory Forums? 17. For all what has been said above, I do not find any case in favour of the petitioner company to direct fresh adjudication of its appeals before the authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944, merely on the ground that the duties and penalties stood paid after a period of four years, because payment of duties and penalties would not create any additional right in the petitioner company to seek re-adjudication of its appeal which had since failed because of the non-compliance of the statutory provisions regulating the filing and consideration of the appeals. 18. That apart, in terms of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it stood on the date when the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, had passed the Order, the petitioner could seek a reference of his case through the Tribunal to the High Court by complying with the requirement of this Section. He does not appear to have availed of this statutory remedy and had straightaway approached the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ jurisdiction of this Court could not thus have been invoked by the petitioner when equally efficacious remedy of seeking reference to the High Court was available to him in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was held in General Traders v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, 1985 (22) E.L.T. 694 that without seeking reference to the High Court in terms of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, writ jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked by a person aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. This judgment is on all fours and on this count too, the writ petition of the petitioner would not be maintainable. This judgment is on all fours and on this count too, the writ petition of the petitioner would not be maintainable. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed alongwith connected CMP.