9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 832 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Held that - These Writ Petitions are not entertained as there is an efficacious alternate remedy of challenging impugned order dated 31st January, 2018 of the Commissioner of Central Excise before the Tribunal under the Act - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to common order dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The High Court considered three writ petitions challenging a common order dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that the issue of not being given the opportunity for cross-examination was previously dealt with in a similar case dismissed on 25th September, 2018 due to the availability of an alternative remedy to appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The court, based on the precedent, refused to entertain the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as there exists an efficacious alternate remedy to challenge the impugned order before the Tribunal. The petitioners' counsel and the respondents' counsel both agreed that the grounds of challenge in the present petitions were identical to those in the previously dismissed case. The court, relying on its earlier order dated 25th September, 2018 in a similar matter, reiterated that due to the availability of an alternate remedy to challenge the order before the Tribunal, the writ petitions cannot be entertained under extraordinary jurisdiction. In line with its previous decision and considering the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy to challenge the impugned order before the Tribunal, the High Court dismissed all three writ petitions challenging the order dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The court maintained that the existence of a statutory appeal process precludes the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this matter.
|
