https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46332 A writ petition challenging excise exemption notifications was not rejected for alternative remedy, because the matter had already remained pending for years, involved jurisdictional questions, and turned on construction of the notifications. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld since the impugned notification and departmental directions originated in Delhi and part of the cause of action arose there. On merits, Notification No. 107/81-C.E. was construed strictly and did not permit recomputation of exemption on later investments or clearances. Notification No. 88/84-C.E. was held applicable to Factory-III under the third proviso, not the second, because the factory was licensed under Section 13 and its first clearances began after 1 April 1976. en-us Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:58:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46332 A writ petition challenging excise exemption notifications was not rejected for alternative remedy, because the matter had already remained pending for years, involved jurisdictional questions, and turned on construction of the notifications. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld since the impugned notification and departmental directions originated in Delhi and part of the cause of action arose there. On merits, Notification No. 107/81-C.E. was construed strictly and did not permit recomputation of exemption on later investments or clearances. Notification No. 88/84-C.E. was held applicable to Factory-III under the third proviso, not the second, because the factory was licensed under Section 13 and its first clearances began after 1 April 1976. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46332