https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44060 A finding based on an obvious mistake about a pleaded material fact, or on non-application of mind, constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record and can justify certiorari. Here, the adjudicating authority wrongly proceeded on the basis that the assessee had admitted crushing limestone in its factory, although the reply specifically denied it and stated that the limestone was already crushed in the mines. The resulting duty liability finding was unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The existence of an alternative statutory appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order disclosed a patent error, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination after hearing the assessee. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:47:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44060 A finding based on an obvious mistake about a pleaded material fact, or on non-application of mind, constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record and can justify certiorari. Here, the adjudicating authority wrongly proceeded on the basis that the assessee had admitted crushing limestone in its factory, although the reply specifically denied it and stated that the limestone was already crushed in the mines. The resulting duty liability finding was unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The existence of an alternative statutory appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order disclosed a patent error, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination after hearing the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44060