https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178289 Writ jurisdiction was held available despite rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred because a limitation-based refusal does not cure patent illegality, procedural infirmity, or breach of natural justice in the underlying adjudication. The adjudication order was also found unsustainable because the authority failed to address the pending approval application and the procedural requirements relevant to the stitching unit and captive consumption claim, while proceeding on an incomplete factual and procedural footing. The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178289 Writ jurisdiction was held available despite rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred because a limitation-based refusal does not cure patent illegality, procedural infirmity, or breach of natural justice in the underlying adjudication. The adjudication order was also found unsustainable because the authority failed to address the pending approval application and the procedural requirements relevant to the stitching unit and captive consumption claim, while proceeding on an incomplete factual and procedural footing. The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178289