https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338145 The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The court held that the petitions involved mixed questions of fact and law, making direct intervention inappropriate. It highlighted that the availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of caution, and in this case, appellate remedies under the Central Excise Act were deemed suitable. The court refrained from opining on the refund claim's merits, directing the petitioners to pursue remedies through the prescribed appellate process. en-us Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338145 The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The court held that the petitions involved mixed questions of fact and law, making direct intervention inappropriate. It highlighted that the availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of caution, and in this case, appellate remedies under the Central Excise Act were deemed suitable. The court refrained from opining on the refund claim's merits, directing the petitioners to pursue remedies through the prescribed appellate process. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338145