https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781049 HC dismissed the petition and disposed of the matter, holding the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under law and must exhaust appellate remedies. The court found the Appellate Authority is best placed to determine whether the Central Excise Officer could have issued an order within the one-year period under Section 73(4)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the ordinary remedy; accordingly the petition was not entertained. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:20:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781049 HC dismissed the petition and disposed of the matter, holding the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under law and must exhaust appellate remedies. The court found the Appellate Authority is best placed to determine whether the Central Excise Officer could have issued an order within the one-year period under Section 73(4)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the ordinary remedy; accordingly the petition was not entertained. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781049