https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42767 A writ petition challenging demand, licence-related relief and refund was held not maintainable because the same foundational issues were already being addressed in statutory proceedings before the excise authorities and a pending appeal before the Tribunal. Where the adjudicatory forum had examined the core controversy, including the finding that the unit was fictitious and the levy of duty and penalty, the High Court should not use Article 226 to bypass the available appellate remedy. The writ jurisdiction was therefore declined in favour of the statutory process. en-us Fri, 09 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:46:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42767 A writ petition challenging demand, licence-related relief and refund was held not maintainable because the same foundational issues were already being addressed in statutory proceedings before the excise authorities and a pending appeal before the Tribunal. Where the adjudicatory forum had examined the core controversy, including the finding that the unit was fictitious and the levy of duty and penalty, the High Court should not use Article 226 to bypass the available appellate remedy. The writ jurisdiction was therefore declined in favour of the statutory process. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42767