https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345770 The court found the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 112(b)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner was directed to appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, within four weeks. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies in fiscal matters before seeking judicial intervention, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. en-us Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345770 The court found the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 112(b)(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner was directed to appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, within four weeks. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies in fiscal matters before seeking judicial intervention, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345770