M/S Tirzah Industries v. Union Of India And ORS

$~64 & 67 & 72 & 73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5450/2026 & CM APPL. 26650/2026 & CM APPL. 26651/2026 M/S TIRZAH INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Pradeep Singh Rawat and Mr. Abhinav Kalra, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Advocate for R-1/UOI Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocates for R-3 + W.P.(C) 5473/2026 & CM APPL. 26697/2026 & CM APPL. 26698/2026 M/S NEW BHARAT WIRE INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Pradeep Singh Rawat and Mr. Abhinav Kalra, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocates for R-3 + W.P.(C) 5488/2026 & CM APPL. 26914/2026 & CM APPL. 26915/2026 M/S A R INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Pradeep Singh Rawat and Mr. Abhinav Kalra, Advocates The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr.

Nishant Gautam, CGSC (Through VC) Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocates for R-3 + W.P.(C) 5489/2026 & CM APPL. 26917/2026 & CM APPL. 26918/2026 M/S S.M. ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Pradeep Singh Rawat and Mr. Abhinav Kalra, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, SPC with Mr. Bharat Sharma, G.P., Mr. Bilal Khan, Mr. Raghav Sood, Mr. Aditya Jha, Mr. Utsav Madan, Mr. Satvik Bajaj and Ms. Smriti Dua, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocates for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 23.04.2026 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

1.

Admittedly statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that having regard to the date of show cause notice, the mandatory pre-deposit condition was not in existence on the said date, and as such he cannot be mandated to make predeposit. He has sought to rely on certain judgments so as to substantiate said contention.

2.

In our opinion, it is open for the petitioner to canvass the said issue before the Appellate Authority by relying on such position of law. As such, we reserve liberty to that extent in favour of the petitioner. 3.

The petitions along with pending applications, if any, accordingly, stand disposed of.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J APRIL 23, 2026 gs/sg The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.