https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43063 A writ of prohibition is limited to preventing assumption or excess of jurisdiction and is not ordinarily used to interrupt ongoing adjudication or correct alleged errors on merits. In a central excise proceeding, refusal of cross-examination did not by itself establish breach of natural justice because prejudice had to be shown, and the matter had already been closed for orders. The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal and further appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, weighed against Article 226 interference. On those facts, prohibition was not maintainable and the natural justice challenge failed. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:42:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43063 A writ of prohibition is limited to preventing assumption or excess of jurisdiction and is not ordinarily used to interrupt ongoing adjudication or correct alleged errors on merits. In a central excise proceeding, refusal of cross-examination did not by itself establish breach of natural justice because prejudice had to be shown, and the matter had already been closed for orders. The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal and further appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, weighed against Article 226 interference. On those facts, prohibition was not maintainable and the natural justice challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43063