M/s Suraj Marbles Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Oct 2010
- Bench
- DINESH MAHESHWARI, A M SAPRE
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Central Excise Act, 1944
Judgment
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sanjeev Johari, for the petitioners. Mr. Lokesh Mathur for Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, for the respondents. <><><> BY THE COURT: Admittedly, the petitioners have challenged in this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the legality and correctness of an order dated 30.06.2008 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in Central Excise Appeals Nos. 4311-13/2004 as is amply clear from the relief clause of the writ petition. Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for filing of an appeal before this Court against every order passed by the Tribunal. This being the legal position, we are of the view that the writ petition filed by the petitioners against an order passed by the Tribunal cannot be entertained because the remedy of the writ petitioners lies in filing an appeal as provided under Section 35G ibid before the High Court. Accordingly and in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to entertain this writ petition and grant liberty to the writ petitioners to take recourse to the appropriate statutory remedies available to them under the Central Excise Act,
1944. It is with this liberty, we dismiss the writ petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. (A.M.SAPRE), J. /Mohan/
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Central Excise Act, 1944.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 04 Oct 2010. The bench was DINESH MAHESHWARI, A M SAPRE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.