https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43555 The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an excise duty order, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 35-G(3) of the Act. Despite arguments that an error was apparent in the orders, the Court upheld the respondents' preliminary objection, citing that the Tribunal's findings were not arbitrary. The Court clarified that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar approaching the Court under Article 226 but found no justification for bypassing the statutory remedy in this case. The petition was deemed not maintainable, and costs were not awarded. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:10:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43555 The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an excise duty order, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 35-G(3) of the Act. Despite arguments that an error was apparent in the orders, the Court upheld the respondents' preliminary objection, citing that the Tribunal's findings were not arbitrary. The Court clarified that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar approaching the Court under Article 226 but found no justification for bypassing the statutory remedy in this case. The petition was deemed not maintainable, and costs were not awarded. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43555