https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43387 Writ relief under Article 226 was declined in a revenue dispute where the petitioners had already pursued statutory appeal and revision remedies under the excise framework. Limitation was held not to be a jurisdictional defect, so the plea that recovery was time-barred had to be raised before the statutory authorities rather than in writ proceedings. The Central Government was justified in refusing a revision where an appeal remedy was available. Claims for refund and double taxation relief also failed because the earlier demand being set aside did not extinguish substantive excise liability, and the levy dispute remained pending under the applicable fiscal regimes. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:17:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43387 Writ relief under Article 226 was declined in a revenue dispute where the petitioners had already pursued statutory appeal and revision remedies under the excise framework. Limitation was held not to be a jurisdictional defect, so the plea that recovery was time-barred had to be raised before the statutory authorities rather than in writ proceedings. The Central Government was justified in refusing a revision where an appeal remedy was available. Claims for refund and double taxation relief also failed because the earlier demand being set aside did not extinguish substantive excise liability, and the levy dispute remained pending under the applicable fiscal regimes. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43387