https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41612 Where an adequate statutory reference remedy existed under the excise law, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was ordinarily not invoked to bypass it, especially when the petitioners could raise want of jurisdiction before the statutory forum. The challenge to exemption and concessional duty also failed because the Tribunal's factual finding that clearances exceeded the prescribed threshold could not be reopened in writ proceedings. On limitation, the notice was treated as timely because time ran from the date the clearance crossed the taxable limit, and the notice issued within two months was within the prescribed period. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:36:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41612 Where an adequate statutory reference remedy existed under the excise law, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was ordinarily not invoked to bypass it, especially when the petitioners could raise want of jurisdiction before the statutory forum. The challenge to exemption and concessional duty also failed because the Tribunal's factual finding that clearances exceeded the prescribed threshold could not be reopened in writ proceedings. On limitation, the notice was treated as timely because time ran from the date the clearance crossed the taxable limit, and the notice issued within two months was within the prescribed period. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41612