https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387001 The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, a private limited company and its Managing Director, challenging the authority's decision regarding excise benefits. The petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before filing an appeal, opting instead to file the writ petition. The Court found the writ petition misconceived as the petitioners had already availed their statutory remedy by filing an appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and exhausting available remedies before resorting to writ petitions. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:02:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387001 The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, a private limited company and its Managing Director, challenging the authority's decision regarding excise benefits. The petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before filing an appeal, opting instead to file the writ petition. The Court found the writ petition misconceived as the petitioners had already availed their statutory remedy by filing an appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and exhausting available remedies before resorting to writ petitions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387001