2013 (4) TMI 275 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery of erroneous refund - refund of excise duty on bogus and forged documents - writ petition against recovery - alternative remedy - Held that - when there is adequate efficacious alternative remedy, one cannot normally invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. - the petitioner cannot legally approach this Court seeking the relief as incorporated in the writ petition herein. - this Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the present writ petition in view of embargo, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents in the course of her argument - This proceeding is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 challenged due to alternative remedy available under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought relief against an order issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, which directed the petitioner to refund excise duty and imposed a penalty based on findings of bogus claims. The petitioners contended that the findings and order were illegal, arbitrary, and violated constitutional provisions as they were allegedly made in violation of rules and procedures. The petitioners argued that the order should be set aside and quashed. The respondents, however, argued that the Central Excise Act, 1944, provided an alternative remedy under Section 35 against orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, and therefore, the High Court should not entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant provisions of law. It noted that the respondents' counsel correctly pointed out that when there exists an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 should not be invoked. In this case, since the petitioners did not pursue the remedy available under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the High Court found that it could not entertain the writ petition. The court, therefore, dismissed the proceeding on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the availability of an alternative remedy under the Central Excise Act, which precluded the petitioners from seeking relief directly through a writ petition under Article 226. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds.