https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43939 Disputed questions over whether pipe manufacture used bars or strips and flats required evidence and technical assessment, so the writ court declined to decide exemption entitlement under Article 226 and left the matter to the competent authority. Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was confined to recovery of duty not levied or short-levied and did not govern a direction to obtain a licence and clear goods on payment of duty. The absence of a notice under that provision therefore did not invalidate the impugned communication, and the availability of an appellate remedy weighed against writ interference. en-us Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:14:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43939 Disputed questions over whether pipe manufacture used bars or strips and flats required evidence and technical assessment, so the writ court declined to decide exemption entitlement under Article 226 and left the matter to the competent authority. Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was confined to recovery of duty not levied or short-levied and did not govern a direction to obtain a licence and clear goods on payment of duty. The absence of a notice under that provision therefore did not invalidate the impugned communication, and the availability of an appellate remedy weighed against writ interference. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43939