TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant could maintain a direct challenge before the Supreme Court without first availing the statutory appeal remedy under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The appellant had earlier been told that a statutory appeal lay to the High Court under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the appellant accepted that position. As that remedy was not availed, the direct challenge to the CESTAT order could not be entertained.
Conclusion: The direct appeals were not maintainable and the challenge was rejected against the appellant.
TaxTMI 
