IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 70 OF 2008 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA ... Petitioner Versus M/S. GOA ISPAT LTD., AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Ferreira,Asst. Solicitor General for the petitioner. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocates for the respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 11th June, 2008 P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the final order dated 30th June 2006 passed by the Principal Bench of Settlement Commission, Delhi. According to the petitioner, the order is illegal since the Settlement Commission did not insist on the full deposit of the acquitted liability before granting the settlement. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order is also illegal because not only the Settlement Commission overlooked the fact that the respondents had not deposited the full amount but they have on the other hand granted time to deposit the amount even after the order was passed. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, points out that this order was challenged by them before the Delhi High Court by way of writ petition and the Delhi High Court has further granted 8 weeks time from the date of the order to deposit a remaining sum of Rs.2,51,70,872/-. According to the respondents, before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner did not raise the question of the order being illegal on account of non-deposit of the amount and have in fact thereafter, not taken any steps to challenge the order of the Delhi High Court extending the time. 3. In this circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate to entertain the collateral challenge to the same order which has been the subject matter of a proceeding before the Delhi High Court. Indeed, if the petitioner is aggrieved, they may take appropriate recourse against the order passed by the Delhi High Court, if so advised in accordance with law. 4. The petition is dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. SMA