2016 (9) TMI 979 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability - writ petition before this Court - seeking issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by respondent, impugned order passed by CESTAT, New Delhi and order of the respondent no. 2. Also seeking to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the CESTAT, New Delhi to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merit - remedy of appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available to the petitioner - Held that - after arguing the writ petition at some length, the petitioner seeks to withdraw present writ petition with liberty to file the statutory appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court regarding the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Decision on whether the petitioner can pursue the remedy of appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1:
The judgment revolves around the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court concerning the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing a previous decision by the High Court. The court referred to the case of Rishab Velveleen Ltd. vs. the Union of India and others, emphasizing that the remedy of appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available to the petitioner. Consequently, the court held that there is no basis for entertaining the present writ petition against the orders passed by the Tribunal.

Issue 2:
The second issue in the judgment pertains to the decision on whether the petitioner can pursue the remedy of appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After hearing arguments on the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed the intention to withdraw the writ petition, seeking liberty to file the statutory appeal under section 35-G of the Act. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal under the relevant provision. The court also directed the return of certified copies of the documents submitted by the petitioner and ordered the supply of a certified copy of the order to the petitioner's counsel on the same day upon payment of charges.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily deals with the maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court in light of the availability of the remedy of appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court's decision reflects a strict adherence to the legal procedures and remedies available to the petitioner, ultimately leading to the disposal of the writ petition with liberty granted for pursuing the statutory appeal.