1984 (4) TMI 55 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order dated 8-3-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ghaziabad regarding the classification list of cellulosic spun yarn.
2. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an appeal lies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Whether an alternative remedy should prevent the High Court from interfering in the petition.
4. The applicability of the hierarchy of authorities under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in challenging an order of assessment.
5. The efficacy of departmental remedies in comparison to seeking relief through a writ petition.
6. The discretion of the court in deciding whether to interfere in a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis:
1. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought to challenge the order dated 8-3-1984 concerning the classification list of cellulosic spun yarn. The controversy revolved around the classification of yarn by blending non-cellulosic synthetic waste with cellulosic fiber and the subsequent amendment of the classification list to fall under a different Tariff Item. The relief sought was to quash the order and assert the classification under a specific Tariff Item.
2. The High Court acknowledged that the order was appealable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, providing for an appeal to the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi. Considering the availability of a departmental remedy, the court was inclined not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Despite arguments for interference in the petition due to certain precedents, the court referred to the hierarchy of authorities under the Act for redressal of grievances against wrongful acts. Citing relevant Supreme Court decisions, the court emphasized the need to follow the prescribed mechanism for challenging an order of assessment.
4. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory remedies provided under the Central Excises and Salt Act, emphasizing the need to follow the prescribed procedures for challenging assessment orders. The court referenced past judgments to support the principle that special remedies provided by statutes must be followed.
5. The petitioner contended that departmental remedies were not equally efficacious, citing delays in decision-making and the burden of filing multiple appeals. However, the court found these arguments untenable, noting that the appellate authority could grant stay orders in appropriate cases, and delays in decision-making were not sufficient grounds for interference in a writ petition.
6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition in limine, emphasizing that there were no exceptional grounds to deviate from the normal practice of following statutory procedures for challenging assessment orders. The court exercised its discretion in deciding not to interfere despite the availability of an alternative remedy through departmental appeals.