https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248094 A writ petition was declined where the petitioner had an available statutory appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 but failed to file it within the prescribed or extended time. The Court applied the principle that Article 226 should not be used to revive a time-barred appellate remedy, particularly after unexplained delay of about 1.5 years and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Reliance on an earlier Division Bench decision was rejected because it did not displace the rule against bypassing the statutory mechanism when the party has slept over the remedy. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248094 A writ petition was declined where the petitioner had an available statutory appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 but failed to file it within the prescribed or extended time. The Court applied the principle that Article 226 should not be used to revive a time-barred appellate remedy, particularly after unexplained delay of about 1.5 years and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Reliance on an earlier Division Bench decision was rejected because it did not displace the rule against bypassing the statutory mechanism when the party has slept over the remedy. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248094