https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43556 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held maintainable where the impugned excise directive directly affected the party ultimately bearing the duty burden, even though the initial levy was cast on another person. The court rejected the objection that the petitioner should be driven to the departmental authorities, because entitlement under the exemption notification had already been clarified and accepted. In those circumstances, resort to an alternate departmental remedy was unnecessary, the maintainability challenge failed, and relief was granted by setting aside the directive. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:11:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43556 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held maintainable where the impugned excise directive directly affected the party ultimately bearing the duty burden, even though the initial levy was cast on another person. The court rejected the objection that the petitioner should be driven to the departmental authorities, because entitlement under the exemption notification had already been clarified and accepted. In those circumstances, resort to an alternate departmental remedy was unnecessary, the maintainability challenge failed, and relief was granted by setting aside the directive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43556