Court dismisses writ petition, allows statutory remedy by appeal, upholding previous decisions and legal principles.

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the Ext.P12 order without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal, as confirmed by previous decisions and the law declared in Metal Weld Electrodes v. CESTAT, Chennai. The consideration of the Restoration Application Ext.P9 would be subject to the pursuit of the statutory remedy by way of appeal. The judgment emphasized the availability of a statutory remedy by way of appeal, allowing the petitioner to proceed in accordance with the law while preserving the right to appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of Ext.P12 order
2. Consideration of Restoration Application Ext.P9
3. Statutory remedy by way of appeal

Validity of Ext.P12 order:
The petitioner sought to quash the Ext.P12 order through a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ. The Court heard the Standing Counsel for the respondents and noted that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had already declared the law on similar circumstances in Metal Weld Electrodes v. CESTAT, Chennai. The Court acknowledged that a statutory remedy by way of appeal is maintainable, as confirmed by previous decisions. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner requested permission to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal in accordance with the law.

Consideration of Restoration Application Ext.P9:
The petitioner also requested the Court to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to allow the Restoration Application Ext.P9 and direct the Tribunal to consider and decide on the petitioner's appeal along with connected appeals. However, the Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition without prejudice to the right of appeal implies that the consideration of the Restoration Application Ext.P9 would be subject to the pursuit of the statutory remedy by way of appeal as per the law declared by the Court.

Statutory remedy by way of appeal:
The central issue addressed in the judgment was the availability of a statutory remedy by way of appeal. The Court relied on previous decisions, including one by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, to establish that such a remedy is maintainable. The petitioner was permitted to pursue this statutory remedy by way of appeal in accordance with the law. The dismissal of the writ petition was based on this understanding, ensuring that the petitioner's right to appeal was preserved while dismissing the immediate relief sought through the writ petition.

---