https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303366 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided a statutory appellate remedy against an order alleging short-payment of excise duty. The court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked at the first instance when an effective alternate remedy exists, and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal before seeking constitutional relief. The petition was dismissed at that stage. en-us Thu, 09 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 17 Jul 2022 17:32:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303366 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided a statutory appellate remedy against an order alleging short-payment of excise duty. The court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked at the first instance when an effective alternate remedy exists, and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal before seeking constitutional relief. The petition was dismissed at that stage. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303366