https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46053 A writ petition against a show-cause notice proposing penalty under the Central excise framework was not entertained because the petitioner had not first replied to the notice or pursued the available statutory adjudicatory process. The ordinary rule against bypassing an efficacious alternative remedy therefore applied, and the petitioner was required to respond before the competent authority, which was directed to pass a speaking order. Pending that adjudication, coercive recovery was stayed to preserve the status quo until a reasoned decision was made. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:24:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46053 A writ petition against a show-cause notice proposing penalty under the Central excise framework was not entertained because the petitioner had not first replied to the notice or pursued the available statutory adjudicatory process. The ordinary rule against bypassing an efficacious alternative remedy therefore applied, and the petitioner was required to respond before the competent authority, which was directed to pass a speaking order. Pending that adjudication, coercive recovery was stayed to preserve the status quo until a reasoned decision was made. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46053