https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46293 A writ petition challenging a revenue dispute was held not maintainable because the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided a specific appellate route under Section 35L to the Supreme Court. The court held that the existence of that statutory remedy could not be ignored merely because Article 226/227 jurisdiction is generally available in appropriate cases. Authorities cited in support of writ intervention were confined to their own factual and constitutional context and did not justify bypassing the prescribed appellate mechanism. As the alternative-remedy rule applied and no recognised exception was shown, the writ court declined to short-circuit the statutory process and dismissed the petition. en-us Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:40:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46293 A writ petition challenging a revenue dispute was held not maintainable because the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided a specific appellate route under Section 35L to the Supreme Court. The court held that the existence of that statutory remedy could not be ignored merely because Article 226/227 jurisdiction is generally available in appropriate cases. Authorities cited in support of writ intervention were confined to their own factual and constitutional context and did not justify bypassing the prescribed appellate mechanism. As the alternative-remedy rule applied and no recognised exception was shown, the writ court declined to short-circuit the statutory process and dismissed the petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46293