AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 147 wordsWe have heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sushil Hartauli learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 17.1.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise Allahabad. The petitioner has statutory right of filing an appeal u/s 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly rejected. In case the petitioner files an application for stay along with the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the stay application within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of the same.