TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the Tribunal's order directing compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement for filing the appeal, and whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy.
Analysis: Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits an appeal to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, subject to the statutory limitations. An order directing deposit of the prescribed pre-deposit and stipulating that the appeal would proceed only on compliance was treated as an order capable of challenge within the statutory framework. The existence of statutory restrictions on maintainability did not render such an order non-appealable. The Court also noted that no case was made out on lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal or violation of natural justice, and that entertaining the writ petition would effectively permit bypassing the statutory scheme. On these facts, the petition was also not fit for exercise of writ jurisdiction in view of the alternative remedy and the territorial jurisdiction objection.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected on the grounds of alternative remedy and lack of territorial jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
