https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47513 Availability of an appellate remedy does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge alleges lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or violation of natural justice; judicial review may still be entertained. A statutory authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 cannot reopen or negate findings already reached by competent Customs or Central Excise authorities on matters within their exclusive domain unless those prior determinations are first lawfully reopened by the authority competent to do so. On that footing, the first show cause notice and the consequential final order were treated as beyond jurisdiction, while the later notice was left to be pursued before the appropriate forum. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:04:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47513 Availability of an appellate remedy does not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge alleges lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or violation of natural justice; judicial review may still be entertained. A statutory authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 cannot reopen or negate findings already reached by competent Customs or Central Excise authorities on matters within their exclusive domain unless those prior determinations are first lawfully reopened by the authority competent to do so. On that footing, the first show cause notice and the consequential final order were treated as beyond jurisdiction, while the later notice was left to be pursued before the appropriate forum. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47513