https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76429 Where classification of an imported product depended on conflicting laboratory reports and expert evidence, the Bombay HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court held that questions whether the goods were proprietary food or carbonated water could not be conclusively decided in writ proceedings because they involved disputed technical facts. It also noted that an efficacious statutory remedy was available, and that the petitioners could seek appropriate relief, including release of goods, before the competent criminal court in the pending proceedings. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable on the facts presented. en-us Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76429 Where classification of an imported product depended on conflicting laboratory reports and expert evidence, the Bombay HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court held that questions whether the goods were proprietary food or carbonated water could not be conclusively decided in writ proceedings because they involved disputed technical facts. It also noted that an efficacious statutory remedy was available, and that the petitioners could seek appropriate relief, including release of goods, before the competent criminal court in the pending proceedings. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable on the facts presented. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76429