https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46888 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where excise adjudication raised disputed factual issues on undervaluation, price declarations, disclosure of profit element, and alleged suppression supporting invocation of the extended period under the Central Excise Act. The Court noted that the statute provided an effective appeal under Section 35B, and the Section 35F deposit requirement was not treated as onerous because waiver on undue hardship was available. In the absence of patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or another exceptional ground, the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. en-us Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:39:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46888 Writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate where excise adjudication raised disputed factual issues on undervaluation, price declarations, disclosure of profit element, and alleged suppression supporting invocation of the extended period under the Central Excise Act. The Court noted that the statute provided an effective appeal under Section 35B, and the Section 35F deposit requirement was not treated as onerous because waiver on undue hardship was available. In the absence of patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or another exceptional ground, the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46888