https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41530 A writ petition was maintainable despite the petitioner's earlier revision under the Act, because the revisional remedy was discretionary and its withdrawal did not oust Article 226 jurisdiction; the preliminary objection was rejected. On the merits, the textile classification and demand could not stand because the authorities relied on a sample and warehouse register that were not shown to be relevant to the goods in dispute, were not properly available for scrutiny, and were used without a fair opportunity to meet the material. The finding was vitiated by irrelevant evidence and breach of natural justice, so the impugned orders were quashed. en-us Mon, 03 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:38:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41530 A writ petition was maintainable despite the petitioner's earlier revision under the Act, because the revisional remedy was discretionary and its withdrawal did not oust Article 226 jurisdiction; the preliminary objection was rejected. On the merits, the textile classification and demand could not stand because the authorities relied on a sample and warehouse register that were not shown to be relevant to the goods in dispute, were not properly available for scrutiny, and were used without a fair opportunity to meet the material. The finding was vitiated by irrelevant evidence and breach of natural justice, so the impugned orders were quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41530