https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44928 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where a fact-intensive tariff classification dispute was already pending in a statutory appeal. The High Court held that, because an efficacious appellate remedy had been invoked and was still being pursued, interference to bypass the Tribunal was not justified on affidavit material alone. The petitioner's earlier offer to pay the disputed amount before the Tribunal did not make writ intervention appropriate. Consequential refund relief was also rejected as premature until the merits of the appeal were decided, and the matter was left for expeditious determination by the appellate tribunal. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:57:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44928 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined where a fact-intensive tariff classification dispute was already pending in a statutory appeal. The High Court held that, because an efficacious appellate remedy had been invoked and was still being pursued, interference to bypass the Tribunal was not justified on affidavit material alone. The petitioner's earlier offer to pay the disputed amount before the Tribunal did not make writ intervention appropriate. Consequential refund relief was also rejected as premature until the merits of the appeal were decided, and the matter was left for expeditious determination by the appellate tribunal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44928