https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34088 The Madras HC noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed excise exemption because the notification and the undertaking said to have been filed were not produced, so the plea that excise duty was not payable was rejected. It also held that the impugned demand orders had attained finality, no appeals had been filed against them, and an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available against the notice. On that basis, the Court found no reason to interfere under writ jurisdiction with the assessment, interest, penalty, and recovery steps, and the recovery action was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34088 The Madras HC noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed excise exemption because the notification and the undertaking said to have been filed were not produced, so the plea that excise duty was not payable was rejected. It also held that the impugned demand orders had attained finality, no appeals had been filed against them, and an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available against the notice. On that basis, the Court found no reason to interfere under writ jurisdiction with the assessment, interest, penalty, and recovery steps, and the recovery action was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34088