https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42649 An effective statutory appellate and reference framework under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was treated as an adequate alternative to writ jurisdiction. A challenge to adjudication on the ground that further time was refused for written representations was held to be a matter that could be pursued in the statutory remedy, rather than by Article 226 intervention. The court noted that the petitioner had been heard and the hearing had concluded, so the complaint of natural justice did not justify writ interference. The impugned adjudication was left undisturbed and the petitioner was relegated to the remedies under the Act. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:14:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42649 An effective statutory appellate and reference framework under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was treated as an adequate alternative to writ jurisdiction. A challenge to adjudication on the ground that further time was refused for written representations was held to be a matter that could be pursued in the statutory remedy, rather than by Article 226 intervention. The court noted that the petitioner had been heard and the hearing had concluded, so the complaint of natural justice did not justify writ interference. The impugned adjudication was left undisturbed and the petitioner was relegated to the remedies under the Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42649