2019 (9) TMI 474 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - availability of alternative remedy - Process amounting to manufacture - excisability - printing of Signages (Sign Boards), Printed Digital Flex, Pylon Signs, Glow Signs etc., and supplying the same to various customers, like M/s.Reliance Retail, M/s.Arvind Styles, M/s.3M India etc. - demand of excise duty - HELD THAT - We are not inclined to entertain this Writ Appeal, as we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy of the statutory appeal, provided under the law. No exceptional circumstances are found to allow such issues to be raised in Writ jurisdiction. Of course, the appellant is free to raise all the questions, including the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction, before the Appellate Authority, who is expected to decide all the questions and objections, raised by the appellant. Also, this Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 09.11.2018, as belatedly as on 9th June, 2019, after a gap of seven months. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of Writ Petition by Single Judge
2. Lack of territorial jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority
3. Exigibility of Excise Duty on Sign Boards
4. Relegation to alternative remedy of statutory appeal
5. Delay in filing Writ Appeal

Analysis:

1. The Intra Court Appeal was filed against the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the demand of Excise Duty on printing of Signages. The Single Judge directed the appellant to file a regular appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

2. The appellant raised concerns about the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to pass the order due to the supply of Sign Boards outside its jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the jurisdiction issue should have been considered in the Writ Petition itself, instead of being relegated to the statutory appeal process.

3. The main contention revolved around the exigibility of Excise Duty on the Sign Boards supplied to various customers. The Adjudicating Authority had addressed only the issue of Excise Duty, while the jurisdiction matter was left unaddressed.

4. The Court declined to entertain the Writ Appeal, stating that the Single Judge was correct in directing the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal route. The Court emphasized that all issues, including territorial jurisdiction, can be raised before the Appellate Authority for a comprehensive decision.

5. Notably, the Writ Appeal was filed seven months after the Single Judge's order, which was considered belated. The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal but allowed the appellant to file a statutory appeal within six weeks from the judgment date, with no objection to the limitation, subject to other usual conditions.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to dismiss the Writ Petition and advised the appellant to seek redress through the statutory appeal process, addressing all raised issues, including territorial jurisdiction, before the Appellate Authority within the specified timeframe.