https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459191 The writ petition was not examined on merits because an alternative efficacious remedy was available and no recognised exception for bypassing that remedy was shown. The Court noted the plea of financial hardship and the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% for filing the appeal, but it made no final determination on that contention in the present order. Notice was issued for final disposal, and the matter was kept open for further consideration. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2024 21:50:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459191 The writ petition was not examined on merits because an alternative efficacious remedy was available and no recognised exception for bypassing that remedy was shown. The Court noted the plea of financial hardship and the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 7.5% for filing the appeal, but it made no final determination on that contention in the present order. Notice was issued for final disposal, and the matter was kept open for further consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459191