https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40680 Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an appellate remedy requiring pre-deposit where the petitioner complained of infringement of the fundamental right to carry on trade, so the alternative-remedy objection failed and the petition was maintainable. On excise liability, the person who actually manufactures goods, or the owner or occupier of the factory holding the licence and giving the required notices, is the manufacturer under the excise scheme; a party that merely supplies oilseeds to independent mills and pays crushing charges does not become the manufacturer. The demand notices and detention order were therefore quashed, and recovery of excise duty from the petitioner was restrained. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 May 2010 12:23:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40680 Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an appellate remedy requiring pre-deposit where the petitioner complained of infringement of the fundamental right to carry on trade, so the alternative-remedy objection failed and the petition was maintainable. On excise liability, the person who actually manufactures goods, or the owner or occupier of the factory holding the licence and giving the required notices, is the manufacturer under the excise scheme; a party that merely supplies oilseeds to independent mills and pays crushing charges does not become the manufacturer. The demand notices and detention order were therefore quashed, and recovery of excise duty from the petitioner was restrained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40680