https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366515 Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against a penalty order under Rule 26, Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised because the appellate authority can examine the challenge. The petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal. However, the time spent in bona fide writ proceedings, pursued under the belief that the order was without jurisdiction, was treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned subject to timely filing of the appeal and compliance with the appellate requirements, including pre-deposit. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Sep 2018 08:15:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366515 Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available against a penalty order under Rule 26, Article 226 writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised because the appellate authority can examine the challenge. The petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal. However, the time spent in bona fide writ proceedings, pursued under the belief that the order was without jurisdiction, was treated as sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned subject to timely filing of the appeal and compliance with the appellate requirements, including pre-deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366515