https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82848 Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 ordinarily requires exhaustion of that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226. An impugned order appealable to the Additional Chief Controller should therefore be challenged through the prescribed appellate process rather than by a writ petition. Where the appeal is already time-barred, the appellant may file an application seeking condonation of delay with the appeal. The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. en-us Wed, 08 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82848 Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 ordinarily requires exhaustion of that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226. An impugned order appealable to the Additional Chief Controller should therefore be challenged through the prescribed appellate process rather than by a writ petition. Where the appeal is already time-barred, the appellant may file an application seeking condonation of delay with the appeal. The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82848