https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46288 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass a complete statutory appellate scheme under the Central Excise Act, particularly where the enactment provides remedies for delay and related procedural reliefs. A challenge to a central excise demand arising from disallowance of Modvat credit was therefore not entertained in writ proceedings because the petitioners had not exhausted the available appellate remedies before the Commissioner or the Tribunal. The writ petition was held not maintainable for the relief sought and the parties were left to pursue the statutory mechanism. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:34:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46288 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to bypass a complete statutory appellate scheme under the Central Excise Act, particularly where the enactment provides remedies for delay and related procedural reliefs. A challenge to a central excise demand arising from disallowance of Modvat credit was therefore not entertained in writ proceedings because the petitioners had not exhausted the available appellate remedies before the Commissioner or the Tribunal. The writ petition was held not maintainable for the relief sought and the parties were left to pursue the statutory mechanism. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46288