https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385761 The court determined that the amounts deposited were Central Excise Duty, not pre-deposits. The refund claim was time-barred as it was not filed within the prescribed period or in the prescribed form. Additionally, the writ petition under Article 226 was deemed not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory remedy that was not exhausted by the petitioner. Consequently, the court rejected the petition. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:58:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385761 The court determined that the amounts deposited were Central Excise Duty, not pre-deposits. The refund claim was time-barred as it was not filed within the prescribed period or in the prescribed form. Additionally, the writ petition under Article 226 was deemed not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory remedy that was not exhausted by the petitioner. Consequently, the court rejected the petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385761