2019 (12) TMI 1167 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - appealable order or not - Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - As other Writ Petitions have also been dismissed, the petitioner does have an equally efficacious alternative remedy, the admission is declined with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Challenge to order passed by Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise
- Availability of alternative remedy of appeal before Customs Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:

Challenge to Order Passed by Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 24/5/2018 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. The court noted that the order was appealable, and the appeal could be made before the Customs Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of Sec. 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Sec. 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Several similar writ petitions were filed challenging the same order, and the court disposed of those petitions by holding that an appeal remedy was available, granting liberty to prefer an appeal. In a specific case, the court dismissed a writ petition stating that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appealing before the Tribunal, emphasizing that the order was passed by a competent authority after due hearing, and thus, the writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.

Availability of Alternative Remedy of Appeal Before Customs Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal:
The court highlighted that the petitioner, along with others whose writ petitions were dismissed, had an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appealing before the Customs Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. Due to the existence of this alternative remedy, the court declined admission of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under the law. The court's decision was based on the principle that when an order is passed by a competent authority and an alternative remedy is available, interference by the court is not warranted. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention, thereby upholding the principle of hierarchy of courts and the statutory appeal mechanism.

In conclusion, the judgment of the High Court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Customs Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal for orders passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order, citing the presence of an equally efficacious remedy and the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial interference.