https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43142 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where excise duty liability and exemption claims depended on the factual nature of the petitioners' body-building activity and the correct classification under the excise framework. The approved classification lists continued to operate, and the petitioners had not first sought modification or reclassification before the competent excise authorities. The authorities were the proper forum to assess the factual and legal basis of any exemption claim under the statutory procedure. Direct challenge in writ proceedings was therefore premature, and the petitions were treated as misconceived at that stage. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:15:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43142 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where excise duty liability and exemption claims depended on the factual nature of the petitioners' body-building activity and the correct classification under the excise framework. The approved classification lists continued to operate, and the petitioners had not first sought modification or reclassification before the competent excise authorities. The authorities were the proper forum to assess the factual and legal basis of any exemption claim under the statutory procedure. Direct challenge in writ proceedings was therefore premature, and the petitions were treated as misconceived at that stage. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43142