https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41476 Article 226 writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to quash an excise classification order when the statute provides an effective appellate remedy. The High Court treated the available departmental appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as a complete machinery for redress and applied self-imposed restraint on writ intervention. It noted that delay in the appeal process, or incidental hardship, is not by itself sufficient to bypass the statutory remedy. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the writ petition was rejected and the petitioner was left to pursue the prescribed appeal route. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Nov 2018 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41476 Article 226 writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to quash an excise classification order when the statute provides an effective appellate remedy. The High Court treated the available departmental appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as a complete machinery for redress and applied self-imposed restraint on writ intervention. It noted that delay in the appeal process, or incidental hardship, is not by itself sufficient to bypass the statutory remedy. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the writ petition was rejected and the petitioner was left to pursue the prescribed appeal route. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41476