https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184119 The court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an available appeal remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Despite the petitioner's argument that the Writ Petition should proceed due to the 2nd respondent's decision on merits, the court found that the existence of an alternative remedy precluded the use of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to challenge the order before CESTAT, with no costs awarded. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:53:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184119 The court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an available appeal remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Despite the petitioner's argument that the Writ Petition should proceed due to the 2nd respondent's decision on merits, the court found that the existence of an alternative remedy precluded the use of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to challenge the order before CESTAT, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184119