https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44099 Availability of an alternative statutory appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the tariff issue was a mixed question of law and fact and the basic facts were undisputed. Processed tyre cord fabric of high tenacity yarn, whose tenacity after processing fell below the prescribed standard, was held correctly classifiable under Heading 59.05 rather than Heading 59.02 of Chapter 59, with the relevant exemption notifications not changing that result. Non-disclosure of lower tensile strength in cleared goods amounted to suppression of material facts, attracting the proviso to Section 11A(1) and the extended limitation period, so the duty demands were not time-barred. en-us Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:19:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44099 Availability of an alternative statutory appeal did not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the tariff issue was a mixed question of law and fact and the basic facts were undisputed. Processed tyre cord fabric of high tenacity yarn, whose tenacity after processing fell below the prescribed standard, was held correctly classifiable under Heading 59.05 rather than Heading 59.02 of Chapter 59, with the relevant exemption notifications not changing that result. Non-disclosure of lower tensile strength in cleared goods amounted to suppression of material facts, attracting the proviso to Section 11A(1) and the extended limitation period, so the duty demands were not time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44099