https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45748 Availability of an appellate remedy did not bar Article 226 relief where coercive action was underway and the remedy was treated as onerous rather than an adequate substitute, so the writ petition was maintainable. On the excise issue, duty could not be demanded under Rule 156-B because the consignor's obligation to present the endorsed triplicate application depended on prior rewarehousing steps by the consignee; when the goods never reached the destination warehouse and the consignee did not return the endorsed form, compliance became impossible. The demand was set aside and recovery was restrained. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:39:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45748 Availability of an appellate remedy did not bar Article 226 relief where coercive action was underway and the remedy was treated as onerous rather than an adequate substitute, so the writ petition was maintainable. On the excise issue, duty could not be demanded under Rule 156-B because the consignor's obligation to present the endorsed triplicate application depended on prior rewarehousing steps by the consignee; when the goods never reached the destination warehouse and the consignee did not return the endorsed form, compliance became impossible. The demand was set aside and recovery was restrained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45748