https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160913 Excise appellate and revisional authorities were treated as acting in a quasi-judicial capacity where the statutory scheme required them to decide rival claims for settlement within a hierarchy of appeal and revision, so their orders were amenable to judicial review. However, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction could not be used to reappreciate evidence, correct mere factual errors, or substitute the High Court's choice for that of the statutory authority; interference was confined to jurisdictional error or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. On the special facts, limited interference with an interlocutory possession order was justified to prevent an unlawful state of affairs. en-us Fri, 07 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160913 Excise appellate and revisional authorities were treated as acting in a quasi-judicial capacity where the statutory scheme required them to decide rival claims for settlement within a hierarchy of appeal and revision, so their orders were amenable to judicial review. However, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction could not be used to reappreciate evidence, correct mere factual errors, or substitute the High Court's choice for that of the statutory authority; interference was confined to jurisdictional error or an error of law apparent on the face of the record. On the special facts, limited interference with an interlocutory possession order was justified to prevent an unlawful state of affairs. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160913