https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325206 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the dispute involved disputed facts on use of imported fabric in exported garments, alleged misrepresentation, and limitation. The court noted prima facie substance in the revenue's case that the demand arose from forfeiture of bond, and ruled that such contested issues should be examined by the statutory appellate authority rather than finally decided in writ proceedings. The writ court's order was therefore set aside, and the parties were relegated to the statutory remedy. Time spent in the writ proceedings was excluded for limitation purposes. en-us Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 May 2016 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325206 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where the dispute involved disputed facts on use of imported fabric in exported garments, alleged misrepresentation, and limitation. The court noted prima facie substance in the revenue's case that the demand arose from forfeiture of bond, and ruled that such contested issues should be examined by the statutory appellate authority rather than finally decided in writ proceedings. The writ court's order was therefore set aside, and the parties were relegated to the statutory remedy. Time spent in the writ proceedings was excluded for limitation purposes. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325206