https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31831 Writ jurisdiction was held unavailable to reopen excise appellate orders where the challenge turned on disputed facts, including alleged counsel negligence and the petitioner's own conduct. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not complied with mandatory pre-deposit requirements and had an efficacious statutory remedy by reference under the relevant excise provision, which it had not pursued. No jurisdictional error was found in the Commissioner's or Tribunal's orders, and payment made years later did not create a fresh right to revive the failed appeal. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and fresh adjudication of the appeal was refused. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31831 Writ jurisdiction was held unavailable to reopen excise appellate orders where the challenge turned on disputed facts, including alleged counsel negligence and the petitioner's own conduct. The High Court noted that the petitioner had not complied with mandatory pre-deposit requirements and had an efficacious statutory remedy by reference under the relevant excise provision, which it had not pursued. No jurisdictional error was found in the Commissioner's or Tribunal's orders, and payment made years later did not create a fresh right to revive the failed appeal. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable, and fresh adjudication of the appeal was refused. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31831