https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47070 The availability of a statutory appeal under excise law does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226; the alternative-remedy rule is discretionary and does not exclude review where jurisdictional error or other exceptional grounds exist. The proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act can be invoked only on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. Where the assessee had repeatedly disclosed the relevant facts and the department failed to prove deliberate concealment or support its contrary view with reliable evidence, the extended limitation could not be applied. The demand beyond limitation and related penalties were therefore unsustainable to that extent. en-us Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47070 The availability of a statutory appeal under excise law does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226; the alternative-remedy rule is discretionary and does not exclude review where jurisdictional error or other exceptional grounds exist. The proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act can be invoked only on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. Where the assessee had repeatedly disclosed the relevant facts and the department failed to prove deliberate concealment or support its contrary view with reliable evidence, the extended limitation could not be applied. The demand beyond limitation and related penalties were therefore unsustainable to that extent. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47070