https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41806 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable where the statute provided a complete and efficacious appellate remedy against the Collector's adjudication order. The Court held that disputes on clandestine removal and on the correct adjudicating authority could be examined by the statutory authorities and the Tribunal, so a jurisdictional objection did not justify bypassing the appeal process. The deposit requirement under the appellate provision did not make the remedy ineffective because the Tribunal could dispense with deposit in appropriate cases. The challenge to the order was therefore rejected. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:57:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41806 A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable where the statute provided a complete and efficacious appellate remedy against the Collector's adjudication order. The Court held that disputes on clandestine removal and on the correct adjudicating authority could be examined by the statutory authorities and the Tribunal, so a jurisdictional objection did not justify bypassing the appeal process. The deposit requirement under the appellate provision did not make the remedy ineffective because the Tribunal could dispense with deposit in appropriate cases. The challenge to the order was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41806