https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44452 A writ challenge to excise summons and a show cause notice was not entertained because the dispute turned on factual questions best decided by the statutory authority. The summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the notice under Section 11A alleged incorrect valuation, false certificates, defective price-list particulars, non-filing of annexures, short payment, suppression of facts, and intent to evade duty. The court treated the applicability of the extended limitation period as dependent on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or similar conduct, and held that such matters could not be decided at the writ stage. The petitioner was required to pursue the statutory response before the excise authority. en-us Fri, 17 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:33:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44452 A writ challenge to excise summons and a show cause notice was not entertained because the dispute turned on factual questions best decided by the statutory authority. The summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the notice under Section 11A alleged incorrect valuation, false certificates, defective price-list particulars, non-filing of annexures, short payment, suppression of facts, and intent to evade duty. The court treated the applicability of the extended limitation period as dependent on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or similar conduct, and held that such matters could not be decided at the writ stage. The petitioner was required to pursue the statutory response before the excise authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44452