https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41288 The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to excise duty exemption for belting woven as such under Notification No. 70/69. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have appealed the earlier decision in 1976 that denied the exemption, rather than waiting until 1981 to raise the issue again. The court held that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the available appeal process under the Central Excises and Salts Act 1944 precluded relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court directed each party to bear their own costs and ordered the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner after verification. en-us Mon, 10 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:31:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41288 The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to excise duty exemption for belting woven as such under Notification No. 70/69. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have appealed the earlier decision in 1976 that denied the exemption, rather than waiting until 1981 to raise the issue again. The court held that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the available appeal process under the Central Excises and Salts Act 1944 precluded relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court directed each party to bear their own costs and ordered the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner after verification. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41288