https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351075 The Division Bench held that the writ petition challenging a final order by CESTAT was not maintainable as an appeal remedy existed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Despite the petitioner's arguments citing exceptional circumstances, the court emphasized the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. Relying on legal precedents and statutory provisions, the court rejected the writ petition, deeming it misconceived and not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351075 The Division Bench held that the writ petition challenging a final order by CESTAT was not maintainable as an appeal remedy existed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Despite the petitioner's arguments citing exceptional circumstances, the court emphasized the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. Relying on legal precedents and statutory provisions, the court rejected the writ petition, deeming it misconceived and not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351075