https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790386 Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable where an efficacious statutory appeal exists, and the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy because the customs adjudication did not disclose a patent jurisdictional defect. Non-communication of an extension of time for adjudication under Section 28(9) did not by itself vitiate the proceedings, as communication was not a condition precedent to validity. The challenge based on Section 28BB and the corrigendum to the show cause notice also failed to show a root-level illegality, since the notice was issued within the prescribed period and the dispute could be examined in appeal. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790386 Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable where an efficacious statutory appeal exists, and the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy because the customs adjudication did not disclose a patent jurisdictional defect. Non-communication of an extension of time for adjudication under Section 28(9) did not by itself vitiate the proceedings, as communication was not a condition precedent to validity. The challenge based on Section 28BB and the corrigendum to the show cause notice also failed to show a root-level illegality, since the notice was issued within the prescribed period and the dispute could be examined in appeal. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790386