2012 (6) TMI 793 - HC - Central Excise

Whether Cold Rolled Strips are the result of a process of manufacture undertaken by the petitioners - Held that - Apex Court in the decision in case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. reported in 2012 (11) TMI 885 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it was held that The Excise Law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and hence may not be appropriate for the writ court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that since the assessee has a remedy in the form of a right of appeal under the statute, that remedy must be exhausted first, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, ought not to have been interfered with by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of writ petition challenging Tribunal's order.
2. Availability of alternative remedy under Central Excise Act.
3. Applicability of decision in Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the maintainability of writ petitions challenging orders of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Court considered whether such challenges were permissible when an appeal under the Central Excise Act lies exclusively before the Supreme Court. The counsel conceded that the determination of whether a process amounts to manufacture involves excise duty rate questions, falling under section 35L of the Act. The Court referred to a Division Bench decision supporting this view, emphasizing the limited scope for writ petitions against CESTAT judgments.

2. The Court highlighted that when an appeal against a CESTAT judgment lies exclusively before the Supreme Court, it is not open for the High Court to entertain challenges via writ petitions. The judgment cited the case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., which emphasized the statutory provisions directing appeals to the Apex Court, excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts in such matters. The Court reiterated that the excise law provides a comprehensive framework for redressal, discouraging writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution in excise matters.

3. Based on the legal principles outlined in the Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. case, the Court dismissed the petitions challenging CESTAT orders, emphasizing the need to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal under the Central Excise Act. The Court discharged the rule and vacated any interim relief granted, aligning its decision with the statutory provisions and precedents emphasizing the exclusivity of appellate jurisdiction in excise matters.