2012 (9) TMI 1072 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, regarding the waiver of pre-deposit of duty and the appeal of the petitioner on the merits.

Details of the Judgment:

Challenge to CESTAT Order:
The petitioner, a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing and sale of Flock Fabrics, challenged the order dated 23.03.2012 passed by the CESTAT. The petitioner claimed exemption from Central Excise Duty based on the Notification dated 10.06.2003, which provided exemptions for units undertaking substantial expansion. The dispute arose when the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-1 confirmed a demand of L 4,40,72,632/- and penalty. The CESTAT directed the petitioner to deposit the full amount of demand within eight weeks. The petitioner contended that all manufacturing operations were completed after 07.01.2003 and argued against the demand of duty. The CESTAT's order was challenged on grounds of undue hardship and safeguarding the interest of revenue.

Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy of appealing under Section 35-G of the Act. The CESTAT had granted partial relief to the petitioner by waiving a portion of the penalty, and it was contended that the petitioner should avail the statutory appeal process rather than seeking relief through a writ petition.

Court's Decision:
The Court considered the arguments presented and emphasized the provision of Section 35-G of the Act, which allows an appeal to the High Court from every order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 35-G of the Act. It was noted that while there is no absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition, such power should be exercised sparingly, especially when a statutory alternative remedy is available. The judgment highlighted that the case did not present a strong enough reason to ignore the statutory appeal process provided under the Act.

Conclusion:
The writ petition challenging the CESTAT order was dismissed on the basis of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 35-G of the Act. The Court's decision emphasized the importance of following the statutory appeal process in cases where such remedy exists.