https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404169 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held ordinarily unavailable in fiscal matters where an effective statutory appeal exists under the Central Excise Act, and financial hardship did not justify bypassing that remedy. The Court also held that interference on alleged breach of natural justice requires demonstrated and serious prejudice; mere denial of cross-examination, without showing total violation or material prejudice, was insufficient, especially where factual issues could be examined in appeal. The petitions were therefore not entertained and the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with protection of limitation and directions for expeditious consideration. en-us Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404169 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held ordinarily unavailable in fiscal matters where an effective statutory appeal exists under the Central Excise Act, and financial hardship did not justify bypassing that remedy. The Court also held that interference on alleged breach of natural justice requires demonstrated and serious prejudice; mere denial of cross-examination, without showing total violation or material prejudice, was insufficient, especially where factual issues could be examined in appeal. The petitions were therefore not entertained and the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with protection of limitation and directions for expeditious consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404169