1992 (12) TMI 56 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Parallel Proceedings
2. Classification of Drugs under CETA

Detailed Analysis:

1. Parallel Proceedings

Issue: Whether the petitioner can pursue two parallel proceedings - an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act before the 2nd respondent and a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
- The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, which is pending. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the same order.
- The court observed that while the jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, it is generally not exercised when an adequate alternative remedy is available unless strong exceptions apply. These exceptions include violations of fundamental rights, actions taken under ultra vires law, actions taken without jurisdiction, or violations of natural justice.
- The court noted that the Central Excise Act provides a comprehensive hierarchy of authorities and remedies, including appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and references to the High Court and Supreme Court.
- The court cited precedents where pursuing parallel proceedings was discouraged, emphasizing that allowing such actions would stultify the statutory scheme.
- The court distinguished between cases where alternative remedies were not exhausted and cases where parallel proceedings were pursued, concluding that the latter should not be allowed.

Conclusion:
The court held that the petitioner cannot pursue two parallel proceedings and dismissed the Writ Petition.

2. Classification of Drugs under CETA

Issue: Whether the licence issued under the Drugs Act and the Rules to manufacture Ayurvedic drugs is conclusive for classifying drugs under Chapter 30 of CETA.

Analysis:
- The petitioner contended that the Drugs Act contains comprehensive provisions for manufacturing Ayurvedic drugs and that a licence under this Act should be binding for classification under CETA.
- The 4th respondent argued that the ingredients of the products were synthetically prepared and not natural extracts as mentioned in Ayurvedic books. Therefore, the products could not be classified under sub-heading 3000.30 of CETA.
- The court noted that the Drugs Act, the Central Excise Act, and CETA are different enactments with different objectives, and definitions in one Act are not necessarily applicable to another.
- The petitioner argued that the 4th respondent violated principles of natural justice by accepting additional evidence after the hearing, which was not disclosed to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
Given the court's decision on the first issue, it did not find it necessary to express an opinion on the second issue. The court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the pending appeal within two months.

Final Judgment:
The Writ Petition was dismissed with costs, and the 2nd respondent was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within two months.