https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43694 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already invoked and was actively pursuing a pending statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the same subject matter. The Court distinguished ordinary exceptions to the alternative remedy rule and held that parallel pursuit of writ and appeal would defeat the statutory appellate scheme. The alleged natural justice objection did not justify departure from that principle on the facts stated. The writ was therefore declined, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal before the excise appellate authority. en-us Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:13:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43694 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already invoked and was actively pursuing a pending statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the same subject matter. The Court distinguished ordinary exceptions to the alternative remedy rule and held that parallel pursuit of writ and appeal would defeat the statutory appellate scheme. The alleged natural justice objection did not justify departure from that principle on the facts stated. The writ was therefore declined, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal before the excise appellate authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43694