https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108709 The Gauhati HC states that a writ petition may still be entertained despite statutory appellate remedies where the impugned action is alleged to be arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or contrary to natural justice. It also explains that the North-East industrial incentive notification was to be applied according to its plain language, without importing extra conditions from State industrial policy or treating cigarette manufacture as excluded where the notification did not say so. PMT and similar policy requirements were not conditions precedent for Central excise exemption. The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 did not bar the benefit where compulsory licensing was not attracted. The notification was held to apply until withdrawal for cigarette manufacturers. en-us Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:03:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108709 The Gauhati HC states that a writ petition may still be entertained despite statutory appellate remedies where the impugned action is alleged to be arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or contrary to natural justice. It also explains that the North-East industrial incentive notification was to be applied according to its plain language, without importing extra conditions from State industrial policy or treating cigarette manufacture as excluded where the notification did not say so. PMT and similar policy requirements were not conditions precedent for Central excise exemption. The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 did not bar the benefit where compulsory licensing was not attracted. The notification was held to apply until withdrawal for cigarette manufacturers. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108709