https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31708 The court held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the appellant could seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broad and not restricted by statutory provisions. Regarding the pre-condition of fifty percent differential duty imposed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), the court found it arbitrary and lacking statutory authority. The court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order imposing the pre-condition and emphasizing that the Tribunal must act within its statutory powers. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31708 The court held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 130 of the Customs Act, the appellant could seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is broad and not restricted by statutory provisions. Regarding the pre-condition of fifty percent differential duty imposed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), the court found it arbitrary and lacking statutory authority. The court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order imposing the pre-condition and emphasizing that the Tribunal must act within its statutory powers. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31708