https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42898 Writ jurisdiction was held not to be a substitute for the statutory refund mechanism where the refund rejection order was appealable and the underlying assessment or classification order had not been challenged. Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 governed the refund claim, and refund could not be directed outside that statutory framework. A different view in other proceedings did not displace the binding effect of the unchallenged order. The proper course was to pursue the statutory appeal, with condonation of delay if required, and the writ petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:47:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42898 Writ jurisdiction was held not to be a substitute for the statutory refund mechanism where the refund rejection order was appealable and the underlying assessment or classification order had not been challenged. Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 governed the refund claim, and refund could not be directed outside that statutory framework. A different view in other proceedings did not displace the binding effect of the unchallenged order. The proper course was to pursue the statutory appeal, with condonation of delay if required, and the writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42898