https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173822 Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act was treated as operating retrospectively, so refund claims were held to be governed by the statutory scheme even where earlier orders existed. A writ of mandamus for immediate refund was not available unless the claimant first brought the case within the exceptions to the proviso in Section 11B(2). The existence of an alternative remedy before the authority, together with pending appellate proceedings, supported refusal of direct writ relief until the statutory requirements were satisfied. en-us Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173822 Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act was treated as operating retrospectively, so refund claims were held to be governed by the statutory scheme even where earlier orders existed. A writ of mandamus for immediate refund was not available unless the claimant first brought the case within the exceptions to the proviso in Section 11B(2). The existence of an alternative remedy before the authority, together with pending appellate proceedings, supported refusal of direct writ relief until the statutory requirements were satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173822