Excise classification disputes should follow statutory remedies first, as departmental adjudication must proceed independently of the Board's opinion.

Writ jurisdiction was held unavailable where excise classification of woollen slivers involved factual determination better left to the departmental authorities under the statutory scheme. The Board's communication was treated only as an opinion, not a binding direction, and the adjudicating authorities were required to decide the show cause notices independently. As the petitioners had already been given an opportunity to reply and an efficacious statutory remedy remained available, they were required to pursue the excise process rather than seek writ intervention at that stage. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging excise classification notices and the departmental stand was maintainable when the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy before the excise authorities.

Analysis: The dispute concerned classification of woollen slivers under the excise tariff, which required determination of facts and examination by the departmental authorities. The Board's communication was treated as an expression of opinion and not as a binding direction controlling quasi-judicial adjudication. The Court held that authorities deciding the show cause notices were required to act independently, and that the petitioners had already been given an opportunity to reply. In the presence of pending adjudication under the statutory scheme, the petitioners were required to pursue the departmental remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction at that stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the remedies available under the excise framework.

---