We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
<h1>Appeals dismissed for failing to use statutory appeal under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act before approaching higher forum</h1> SC held the appeals were not maintainable because the appellants had not availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the HC under Section 35-G of ... Maintainability of petition - statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the High Court available under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In view of the aforesaid facts and that the appellant has not availed the statutory remedy of filing appeal before the High Court, it cannot be permitted to challenge the order of the CESTAT directly in this Court by way of these appeals. Appeal dismissed. The appellant challenged the CESTAT order dated 25.05.2010 in this Court. A preliminary objection was that the appellant had first sought relief by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed with a clear direction that the appellant had a 'statutory remedy of filing an appeal to the High Court under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944' and was free to avail that remedy. The appellant subsequently attorned to the High Court's order, thereby accepting that it had the statutory remedy and would file an appeal before the High Court if necessary. Given these facts and the appellant's failure to avail the statutory remedy under Section 35-G, the Court held that the appellant could not be permitted to challenge the CESTAT order directly by way of these appeals. The appeals were dismissed and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
