https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416139 Writ petitions challenging an order-in-original were held not maintainable where a statutory appeal was available under the Central Excise Act with a 7.5% pre-deposit requirement. The Court held that the challenge, which required reappreciation of facts and evidence on duty quantification and penalty, could not be examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It found that none of the recognised exceptions to the alternate remedy rule applied: there was no natural justice breach, no vires challenge, and no apparent lack of jurisdiction. The pre-deposit condition was not treated as so onerous as to justify bypassing the appellate remedy, and the petitioners were relegated to appeal. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Dec 2021 07:49:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416139 Writ petitions challenging an order-in-original were held not maintainable where a statutory appeal was available under the Central Excise Act with a 7.5% pre-deposit requirement. The Court held that the challenge, which required reappreciation of facts and evidence on duty quantification and penalty, could not be examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It found that none of the recognised exceptions to the alternate remedy rule applied: there was no natural justice breach, no vires challenge, and no apparent lack of jurisdiction. The pre-deposit condition was not treated as so onerous as to justify bypassing the appellate remedy, and the petitioners were relegated to appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416139