https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201642 The court dismissed the petition challenging an order and notice on grounds of natural justice and constitutional violation, seeking protection against excise dues recovery. The petitioner's argument of unequal treatment and co-surety liability was rejected as the legal provision allowed recovery from the property owner, not limited by the tripartite agreement. Allegations of favoritism lacked evidence, leading to the denial of Article 226 jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual disputes in civil matters and the requirement for substantial evidence to support legal claims, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:27:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201642 The court dismissed the petition challenging an order and notice on grounds of natural justice and constitutional violation, seeking protection against excise dues recovery. The petitioner's argument of unequal treatment and co-surety liability was rejected as the legal provision allowed recovery from the property owner, not limited by the tripartite agreement. Allegations of favoritism lacked evidence, leading to the denial of Article 226 jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual disputes in civil matters and the requirement for substantial evidence to support legal claims, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201642