https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43558 The Bombay High Court noted that the existence of an appellate remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226; on the special facts, the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected because further appellate proceedings would prolong litigation unnecessarily. It also held that exemption under the excise notification could not be conditioned on proof of the purchaser's or ultimate user's end-use of citric acid, since excise liability arises on manufacture and an end-use requirement cannot be implied unless the notification expressly says so. The tribunal's direction for end-use verification was therefore quashed. en-us Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:14:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43558 The Bombay High Court noted that the existence of an appellate remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226; on the special facts, the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected because further appellate proceedings would prolong litigation unnecessarily. It also held that exemption under the excise notification could not be conditioned on proof of the purchaser's or ultimate user's end-use of citric acid, since excise liability arises on manufacture and an end-use requirement cannot be implied unless the notification expressly says so. The tribunal's direction for end-use verification was therefore quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43558